EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site
EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site
EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
AR TARGET SHEET<br />
The following document was too large to scan as one unit,<br />
therefore, it has been broken down into sections.<br />
EDMC#: 0000003<br />
SECTION: 9 OF 11<br />
DOCUMENT #:<br />
DOE/<strong>EIS</strong>-<strong>0113</strong><br />
TITLE: Final <strong>EIS</strong> Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Defense High-Level, Transuranic<br />
and Tank Wastes
Cn7 71d<br />
v^ 5<br />
DOE/<strong>EIS</strong>-<strong>0113</strong> (VOL. 5 of 5)<br />
PUBLIC COMMENTS<br />
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
HE<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> <strong>Site</strong><br />
Richland, Washington<br />
DECEMBER 1987<br />
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY<br />
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS<br />
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545
COYER SHEET<br />
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy<br />
TITLE: Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense High-Level,<br />
Transuranic and Tank Wastes, <strong>Hanford</strong> <strong>Site</strong>, Richland, Washington - -<br />
CONTACTS: Additional copies or information concerning this statement can be obtained from:<br />
Mr. Tom Bauman, Communications Division, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland<br />
Operations Office, Richland, WA 99352. Telephone: (509) 376-7378.<br />
For general information on DOE's <strong>EIS</strong> process contact: Office of the Assistant<br />
Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Energy, ATTN:<br />
Carol M. Borgstrom, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,<br />
Washington, D.C. 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-4600.<br />
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement (<strong>EIS</strong>) is to provide environmental<br />
input into the selection and implementation of final disposal actions for<br />
high-level, transuranic and tank wastes located at the <strong>Hanford</strong> <strong>Site</strong>, Richland,<br />
Washington, and into the construction, operation and decommissioning of waste<br />
treatment facilities that may be required in implementing waste disposal<br />
alternatives. Specifically evaluated are a <strong>Hanford</strong> Waste Vitrification Plant,<br />
L"V Transportable Grout Facility, and a Waste Receiving and Packaging Facility. - Also<br />
an evaluation is presented to assist in determining whether any additional action<br />
should be taken in terms of long-term environmental protection for waste that was<br />
disposed of at <strong>Hanford</strong> prior to 1970 as low-level waste (before the transuranic<br />
waste category was established by the Atomic Energy Commission but which might<br />
x= fall into that category if generated today).<br />
The following alternatives are considered in this <strong>EIS</strong>: 1) in-place stabilization<br />
and disposal, where waste is left in place but is isolated by protective and<br />
natural barriers; 2) geologic disposal, where most of the waste (by activity and<br />
to the extent practicable) is exhumed, treated, segregated, packaged and disposed<br />
of in a deep geologic repository; waste classified as high-level would be disposed<br />
of in a. commercial repository developed pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy . Act;<br />
transuranic waste would be disposed of in the 'Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near<br />
Carlsbad, New Mexico; 3) areference alternative, where some classes of waste are<br />
disposed of in geologic repositories and other classes of waste are disposed of by<br />
in-place stabilization and disposal; 4) the preferred alternative, in which<br />
double-shell tank wastes, strontium and cesium capsules, and retrievably stored<br />
TRU wastes are disposed of according to the reference alternative, and in which<br />
decisions are deferred on disposal of single-shell tank wastes and on further<br />
remedial action for TRU-contaminated soil sites and pre-1970 buried sus p ect TRUcontaminated<br />
solid wastes (except the 618-11 site) until additional information is<br />
obtained on waste characterization, retrieval methods, and performance of nearsurface<br />
disposal systems; and 5) a no disposal action alternative (continued<br />
storage).
IM<br />
FOREWORD<br />
This environmental impact statement (<strong>EIS</strong>) provides analyses of environmental impacts for<br />
the selection and implementation of final disposal. strategies for the high-level (HLW),<br />
transuranic (TRU) and tank wastes generated during national defense activities and stored at<br />
the <strong>Hanford</strong> <strong>Site</strong> near Richland, Washington. Also an evalua t ion is presented to assist in<br />
determining whether any additional action should be taken in terms of long-term environmental<br />
protection for waste that was disposed of at <strong>Hanford</strong> prior to 1970 as low-level waste (before<br />
the transuranic waste category was established by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) but<br />
which might fall into that category if generated today). This document also addresses<br />
environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of<br />
waste treatment facilities that may be required to implement the waste disposal alternatives.<br />
re<br />
Several previous documents have addressed environmental aspects of the management of<br />
defense waste at the <strong>Hanford</strong> <strong>Site</strong>. The first comprehensive one, The Final Environmental<br />
Statement for <strong>Hanford</strong> Waste Management Operations (ERDA-1538), was issued in 1975. In that<br />
statement, waste management practices at <strong>Hanford</strong> were shown to protect the public health and<br />
safety and the environment on an interim basis. Those practices, however, were not and are<br />
not intended as final solutions for long-term isolation and dis p osal of high-level, TRU and<br />
' tank wastes.<br />
In 1977, the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) issued the report<br />
Alternatives for Long-Term Management of Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste (ERDA-77-44),<br />
which included preliminary cost estimates and analyses of near-term risks associated with<br />
alternatives considered. That document examined 27 variations on four options for the<br />
processing and disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> HLW, encompassing numerous final waste forms and storage<br />
and disposal modes.<br />
In 1978, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science and<br />
Engineering issued a report entitled Radioactive Wastes at the <strong>Hanford</strong> Reservation: A<br />
Technical Review, concluding that there has not been in the past, and is not at the present,<br />
any significant radiation hazard to public health and safety from waste management operations<br />
at <strong>Hanford</strong>. The Council recommended that long-term isolation and disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> highlevel<br />
waste become the main focus of waste management research and development.<br />
The need to include retrievably stored TRU waste within the scope of wastes to be disposed<br />
of, and concerns about potential environmental impacts of wastes disposed of before<br />
1970 as low-level wastes (before the Atomic Energy Commission established the TRU waste Category<br />
but which might be classed as TRU if generated today), led to enlarging the earlier plan<br />
that was to issue an <strong>EIS</strong> covering high-level waste only. Accordingly, on April 1, 1983, the<br />
Department of Energy (DOE) published in the Federal Register (48 FR 14029) a Notice of Intent<br />
(NOI) to prepare an <strong>EIS</strong> on Disposal of Radioactive Defense High-Level and Transuranic Wastes<br />
at <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
Eighteen comment letters were received in response to the Notice of Intent to prepare<br />
this <strong>EIS</strong>. Ten of the letters only requested copies of the draft <strong>EIS</strong> when issued; eight<br />
v
contained comments regarding its preparation. The draft <strong>EIS</strong> was published during March 1986,<br />
and its availability was published in the Federal Register on April 11 (51 FR 12547). During<br />
the 120-day agency and public comment period on the draft <strong>EIS</strong>, which began on April 11, 1986,<br />
243 letters were received that provided about 2000 substantive comments on the draft <strong>EIS</strong>. In<br />
addition, oral testimony was heard on the draft. <strong>EIS</strong> in public hearings held during July .1986.,<br />
in Richland, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Spokane, Washington. -<br />
Excluded from consideration in this <strong>EIS</strong> are low-level radioactive wastes in liquid and<br />
solid disposal sites at <strong>Hanford</strong> (see ERDA 1538). These waste sites are presently being<br />
reviewed under hazardous-waste regulations. Also excluded are wastes generated by decontamination<br />
and decommissioning of surplus or retired facilities after the year 1983 (other<br />
than for .those facilities directly associated with waste disposal). Those operations will be<br />
the subject of other National Envi-ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews..<br />
The Defense Waste Management Plan (DOE/DP 0015) states of the <strong>Hanford</strong> wastes: "Immo -<br />
bilizationof new and readily retrievable high-level waste will begin about 1990 after<br />
sufficient experience is available from Savannah River's vitrification process. Other waste<br />
"'IIr will be stabilized in place in the 1985-2015 time frame if, after the requisite environmental<br />
documentation, it is determined that the short-term risks and costs of retrieval and transportation<br />
outweigh the environmental benefits of disposal in a geologic mined repository."<br />
It is necessary to understand the major differences between civilian and defense wastes<br />
and the prograRs to effect their disposal. Both types of waste include fission products and<br />
transuranic waste elements. On the other hand, the quantities of these elements, the physical<br />
and chemical forms of the wastes, and the technically sound alternatives for their disposal<br />
are markedly different. In all cases, for both civilian and defense, the final methods<br />
ICI _ selected will have to meet the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)standards (40 CFR 191)<br />
for the disposal of spent fuel- and high-level and TRU wastes. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act<br />
of 1982 mandates a procedure to select the potential repository sites for detailed<br />
characterization.<br />
A comparison of the <strong>Hanford</strong> waste inventory resulting from chemical processing of about<br />
100,000 metric tons of nuclear reactor fuel with that of a commercial repository containing<br />
70,000 metric tons of spent fuel elements is enlightening. In this comparison, the waste<br />
inventory from 100,000 metric tons of <strong>Hanford</strong> reactor fuel contains about 4% as much of the<br />
readily transportable (geohydrologically)isotopes 14C, 99Tc', and 129 I°asis contained in<br />
70,000 metric tons of commercial spent fuel-. It contains only 1% as much 90Sr and ' 137 Cs and<br />
about 0.1%.as much of the primary transuranics 239pu., 240 Pu, and 241 Am. The volume of the<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> wastes is markedly larger than the civilian wastes cited above--410,000 m 3 of <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
wastes as compared to 29,000 m 3 of commercial spent fuel.<br />
The physical and chemical characteristics of existing and potential waste forms<br />
considered in this <strong>EIS</strong> are highly diverse: liquid waste. in double-shell tanks,<br />
vitrified/canistered wastes (from processed double-shell tank wastes); sludge and salts in<br />
the single-shell tanks; strontium and cesium capsules that are further protected with a.<br />
vi
Environmental considerations regarding disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong>'s retrievably stored TRU<br />
waste at the Waste. Isolation p ilot Plant (WIPP) (except for retrieval., processing, packaging,<br />
certification and transportation of waste from <strong>Hanford</strong> to WIPP, which are discussed in this<br />
<strong>EIS</strong>) are based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement--Waste Isolation Pilot Plant<br />
(DOE/<strong>EIS</strong>-0026). Environmental considerations associated with waste disposal in geologic<br />
repositories are based on information from the Final Environmental Impact Statement--<br />
Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste . (DOE/<strong>EIS</strong>-0046F). Alternatives to<br />
disposal of high-level waste in geologic repositories were described in that document..<br />
Environmental considerations associated with borosilicate glass as a waste form for<br />
repository disposal of waste and with the construction and operation of a plant to .provide<br />
vitrified waste are based in part on information developed in three previous DOE documents:<br />
Final Environmental Impact Statement--DefenseWaste Processing Facility Savannah River Plant<br />
Aiken, South Carolina (DOE/<strong>EIS</strong>-0082); Environmental Assessment--Waste Form Selection<br />
for SRP High-Level Waste (DOE/EA-0179); and Analyses of the Terminal Waste Form Selection for<br />
the West Valley Demonstration Project (!WVDP-100 DOE).<br />
The <strong>EIS</strong> has been structured to conform as closely as possible to the format described in<br />
Co CEQ Regulation 40 CFR . Parts .1502.1: through 1502.18. To provide more information for the<br />
reader than can be reported within the text of Volume 1, more detailed information is<br />
;;..<br />
included in 22 appendices (Volumes 2 and 3)..Figure 1 in the Introduction to the Appendices<br />
(Volume 2, p. xxiv) shows the purpose of each appendix and how appendices relate to each<br />
other and to the text of Volume 1. Lines in the margins of Volumes 1, 2 and 3 indicate the<br />
areas where revisions were made. Volume 4 contains agency and public comments received and<br />
responses to them as well as the indication of location where revisions were made to the<br />
draft <strong>EIS</strong>. .Volume 5 contains a , reproduction of all of the comment letters received.<br />
The final <strong>EIS</strong> is being transmitted to commenting agencies, made available to members of<br />
the public, and filed with the EPA. The EPA. will publish a notice in the Federal. Register<br />
indicating that the DOE has f iledthe final <strong>EIS</strong>. A DOE decision on proposed actions will not<br />
be made earlier than 30 days after the EPA has published the Federal Register notice for the<br />
final <strong>EIS</strong>. The DOE will record its decision in a publicly available Record of Decision .<br />
document published in the Federal Register.<br />
(ROD)<br />
viii
'Tel,<br />
handling container; previously disposed of pre-1970 wastes in various forms and containers;<br />
and finally, low-level waste products, from the processing of double-shell-tank waste, in the<br />
form ofgrout.<br />
<br />
'<br />
In accordance with the requirements of NEPA, as amended, and implementing regulations of<br />
the Council 0m Environmental Quality (C[V) published i<br />
<br />
4VCFKl00, this <strong>EIS</strong> was written early i the decision-making process to ensure that<br />
<br />
environmental values and alternatives are fully considered before any decisions are made that<br />
might lead to adverse environmental impacts or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.<br />
This process will also help ensure that the public is fully informed and is involved in the<br />
decision-making process.<br />
<br />
<br />
To comply with the NEPA's requirement for early preparation of environmental documentation,t<br />
is[l has eenpreoaredeurlyin <br />
thedi posul eisfnnpro es , Kswi hany major<br />
action, iti expected that once disposal decision i made, subsequent detailed engineering<br />
may enhance specific waste retrieval, treatment, handling, immobilization and/or disposal<br />
processes evaluated in the <strong>EIS</strong>. However, the processes evaluated in this document have been<br />
chosen such that, when finally implemented for any of the options, the processes would not be<br />
expected to result in environmental impacts that significantly exceed those described here.<br />
The DOE believes that bounding analyses performed in this <strong>EIS</strong> meet the requirements of CEQ<br />
regulations for analysis of all reasonably forseeable significant adverse impacts.<br />
<br />
o<br />
<br />
Implementation of defense waste disposal under the alternatives described in this <strong>EIS</strong><br />
will be done in compliance with the letter and spirit of applicable federal and state<br />
environmental statutes, regulations and standards. To ensure that impacts ofspecific<br />
processes used during disposal implementation do not differ significantly from the results of<br />
the analyses set forth in this document, DOE will conduct environmental reviews of the<br />
specific processes as finally proposed. 0n the basis of these reviews, DOE will determine in<br />
accord with agency guidelines what additional NEPA documentation is required. The DOE<br />
anticipates that a supplemental <strong>EIS</strong> will be prepared prior to a decision on a disposal option<br />
for single-shell tank waste.<br />
This document is not intended to provide the environmental input necessary for siting or<br />
`<br />
constructing x geologic repository. For analysis of environmental impacts ^falternatives<br />
involving geologic disposal, generic designs for either an offsite or onsite repository were<br />
used. Detailed environmental documentation required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982<br />
will be prepared before a geologic repository is sited, constructed and operated. &futore<br />
<strong>EIS</strong> to address site selection is expected to include a discussion of cumulative impacts of<br />
<br />
the repository program at all candidate sites, including <strong>Hanford</strong>. <br />
Other NEPA documentation relevant to this <strong>EIS</strong> includes the supplement to ERDA-1538,<br />
Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage at the <strong>Hanford</strong> <strong>Site</strong><br />
(DOE/<strong>EIS</strong>-0063), and the Final Environmental Impact Statement--Operation of PUREX and Uranium<br />
Oxide Plant Facilities (DOE/<strong>EIS</strong>-0089). (The draft PUREX <strong>EIS</strong> with an addendum constituted the<br />
final PUREX <strong>EIS</strong>.)<br />
vii<br />
`
i<br />
CONTENTS<br />
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page<br />
1 Vicki McNeill, Mayor Office of the Mayor 1<br />
Fifth Floor City Hall<br />
Spokane, WA 99201-3335<br />
2 John R. Woodworth Box 043-550-West Fort St. 2<br />
Regional Environmental Officer Boise, ID 83724<br />
3 ban L. Kniesner 11644 SE Morrison 2<br />
Portland, OR 97216<br />
4 Kai N. Lee 2015 Federal Avenue E. 3<br />
Seattle, WA 98102<br />
5 Bruce Blanchard, Director U.S. Department of the 5<br />
Environmental Project Review<br />
Interior<br />
Office of the Secretary<br />
Washington, DC 20240<br />
6 Bobby F. Kirk, Fire Chief 210 West Sixth Avenue 9<br />
P.O. Box 6108<br />
Kennewick, WA 99336<br />
7 Jeanette Taylor Rt. 1, Box 56 9<br />
Athena, OR 97813<br />
8 John Proctor Rt. .1,. Box 310-J 10<br />
Drain, OR 97435<br />
9 Dolores M. Hodge 806 South Second Ave. 11<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
10 P. J. Oberlander,.Chairman 909 Northwest Nineteenth .Ave. 11<br />
M.AZAMAS Conservation Committee Portland, OR 97209<br />
11 Jeff Boscole 3425 W. Lake Sammamish Rd. S. 12<br />
Bellevue, WA 98008<br />
HF^<br />
12 Governor Booth Gardner Olympia, WA 98504 13<br />
13 Gordon J. Rogers 1108 Road 36 15<br />
Pasco, WA 99301<br />
14 Trevor Griffiths 4240 S.E. Knapp St. 16<br />
Portland, OR 97206<br />
15 Milton H. Monnier 7940 S.W. Carol Glen Place 19<br />
Professional Engineer Beaverton, OR 97007<br />
16 John E. Dennee, President .American Water Works 19<br />
Association<br />
Mid Columbia - Deschutes<br />
Subsection<br />
6780 Reservoir Road.<br />
The Dalles, OR 97058<br />
17 Joseph L. Miller, Jr., M.D. 52815 E. Marmot Rd. 20<br />
Sandy, OR 97055<br />
ix
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page<br />
18 Juanita M. Wallin 115 Locust Street 21<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
. 19 D. Kamala Bremer 2222 S.E. Salmon ' 21<br />
Portland, OR 97214<br />
20 Jack W. Hirsch P.O. Box 5186 22<br />
Bend, OR 97708<br />
21 Erica S. .Rubin 2344 N.E. 19 23<br />
Portland, OR 97212<br />
22 Susan Giese Oregon Rainbow Coalition 24<br />
P.O. Box 6797<br />
Portland, OR 97228-6797<br />
23 John Bartels P.O. Box 10744 25<br />
Portland, OR 97210<br />
Cn<br />
;ma<br />
yy<br />
V..J<br />
I ^.<br />
24 Kathy Williams 3279 N.E. Davis 26<br />
Portland , . OR 97232<br />
25 Caroline Miller Multnomah County, Oregon 27<br />
Commissioner, District 3<br />
County Courthouse<br />
Portland, OR 97204<br />
26 Jane A. Van Dyke.. Public Utility District of 30<br />
Commissioner<br />
Clark County<br />
1200 Fort Vancouver Way<br />
P.O. Box C-005<br />
' Vancouver, WA. 98668<br />
27 Walter C. Mintkeski 6815 S.E. 31st 31<br />
Portland, OR 97202<br />
28 .. Marci James -. - 1638 N.E. 118th Ave. 31<br />
Portland, OR 97220<br />
29 Dan. L. Kniesner 11644 S.E. Morrison 32<br />
Portland, OR 97216<br />
30 Peter Frothingham 3131 N.E. Emerson 32<br />
Portland, OR 97211<br />
31 Debra Larson Box 81 33<br />
Bay City, OR 97107<br />
32 Theodore C. Coskey 749 N. 79th 34<br />
Seattle, WA 981^3<br />
33 C. Ray Chesbrough Conservation Plus 34<br />
Windows, Inc.<br />
Cascade Business Park<br />
108512th Ave. Bldg. D6B<br />
Issaquah, WA 98027<br />
34 Mary Henterly- 4115 N. Stevens St. 40<br />
Tacoma, WA 98407<br />
X
C0I<br />
CZ<br />
1'<br />
4^,<br />
Comment<br />
Letter No. Re<br />
35 Vivian Holdorf<br />
36 (No Name)<br />
37 (No Name)<br />
38 Margy Willis<br />
39 Nansie Jubitz<br />
40 John R. Hebner, Chairman<br />
41 Don Bonker<br />
U.S. Representative<br />
42 Nancy Korb<br />
43 The Honorable Les AuCoin<br />
44 Dr. Leonard Palmer<br />
Associate Professor, Geology<br />
45 Edward Tenny, Administrator<br />
Bureau of Water Works<br />
46 Neil Goldschmidt<br />
(Oregon gubernatorial<br />
candidate)<br />
47 Barbara La Morticella<br />
48 Rochelle Cashdan, Ph.D.<br />
49 Sara L. Laumann<br />
50 Joseph L. Miller Jr., M.D.<br />
51 Patricia Morgan<br />
52 Mimi Maduro<br />
Affiliation/Address Page<br />
7321 39th N.E. 41<br />
Seattle, WA 98115<br />
(No Address) - 41<br />
(No Address) 42<br />
4103 S.W. 48th Place 43<br />
Portland, OR 97221<br />
5226 S.W. Northwood Ave. 44<br />
Portland, OR 97201<br />
Inland Empire Regional 45<br />
Conference<br />
Fifth Floor - City Hall<br />
Spokane, WA 99201<br />
3rd District Washington State 45<br />
207 Federal Building<br />
Olympia, WA 98501<br />
13221 S.E. Forest St. 46<br />
Vancouver, WA 98684<br />
2159 Rayburn House Office 47<br />
Building<br />
Washington, DC 20515.<br />
Portland State University 49<br />
Portland OR 97207<br />
1120 S.W. 5th Avenue - 54<br />
Portland, OR 97204-1926<br />
1220 S.W. Morrison, Rm. 625 56<br />
Portland, OR 97205<br />
18200 N.W. Johnson Rd. 61<br />
Portland, OR 97231<br />
3649 S.E. Yamhill 63<br />
Portland, OR 97214<br />
Oregon State Public Interest 63<br />
Research Group (OSPIRG)<br />
027 S.W. Arthur St.<br />
Portland, OR 97201<br />
52815 E. Marmot Rd.. 66<br />
Sandy, OR 97055<br />
615 2nd Street 66<br />
Oregon City, OR 97045<br />
1266 S.E. 47th 68<br />
Portland, OR 97215<br />
xi
Comment<br />
Letter No. . Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page..<br />
53 Lynn D. Frank, Director Oregon Department of Energy 69<br />
625 Marion St. N.E.<br />
Salem, OR 97310<br />
54 Lloyd Marbet (No Address) 74<br />
55 Ron Wyden, Congressman Portland, Oregon - 75<br />
56 Helen E. Ramatowski The League of Women Voters 77<br />
of Clark County, Washington<br />
12714 S.E. Park Street<br />
Vancouver, WA 9G684<br />
57 Jim Weaver, Congressman 4th District, Oregon 78<br />
58 Orvill F. Hill, Ph.D. 1510 S.E. 127th Ave. 86<br />
Consultant, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Vancouver, WA 98684<br />
+.R<br />
59 Mike Lindberg; Commissioner Portland City Council 87<br />
City Hall - 1220 S.W. 5th<br />
Portland, OR 97204<br />
60 Dan Saltzman, Vice-Chairman Oregon <strong>Hanford</strong> Advisory 91<br />
Committee<br />
61 Richard Betsey, M.D. Portland Chapter of 93<br />
Physicians for Social<br />
Responsibility<br />
Oregon Dept, of Energy<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> Advisory Committee<br />
62 Ruth Currie 10630 S.W. Lancaster Rd. 94<br />
N" Portland, OR 97219<br />
63 Russell Plaeger 3025 N.E. 36th Ave. 95<br />
Portland, OR 97212<br />
ae 64 Norma Jean Germond League of Women Voters - 96<br />
224 Iron Mountain Blvd.<br />
Lake Oswego, OR 97034<br />
65 Alberta Gesould 4128 Davis St. 97<br />
Portland, OR 97232<br />
66 L. F. Latvala 303 W. 9th Street 98<br />
Port Angeles, WA 98362<br />
67. Carole Woods Seattle King County Nuclear 98<br />
Weapons Freeze Campaign<br />
2925 Fairview E. #15<br />
Seattle, WA 98102<br />
68 Anne Bringloe, Chairman Sierra Club Northwest Office-- 99<br />
1516 Melrose Avenue<br />
Seattle, WA 98122
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page<br />
69 Ruth Coffin, President League of Women Voters, 101<br />
Washington<br />
111 Monroe Center<br />
1810 N.W. 65th Street<br />
Seattle, WA 98117<br />
70 Al Williams, Chairman Senate Energy & Utilities 102<br />
Committee<br />
State of Washington<br />
71 Ruth F. Weiner Western Washington University 105<br />
Bellingham, WA 98225<br />
72 Brock Adams U.S. Senate<br />
2114 Fourth Avenue-Suite 203 109<br />
Seattle, WA 98121<br />
73 Anci Koppel, Co-Chair Seattle Women Act for Peace 110<br />
Branch of Women Strike for<br />
Peace<br />
2524 16th South<br />
Seattle, WA 98144<br />
r><br />
74 Estella B. Leopold Department of Botany ill<br />
University of Washington<br />
Seattle, WA 98195<br />
75 Mary Mattson 7273 South 128th Street 112<br />
Seattle, WA 98178<br />
76 Opa Leopold 5608 17th N.E. 113<br />
Seattle, WA 98105<br />
77 Walbridge J. Powell 4314 Island Crest Way 114<br />
Engineer & Geologist Mercer Island, WA 98040<br />
78 Washington Public Interest 5628 University Way N.E. 115<br />
Research Group (WASHPIRG) Seattle, WA 98105<br />
79 James Acord 507 Third Avenue - Unit 914 118<br />
Seattle, WA 98104-2355<br />
80 Eva Perret 739 35th Ave. 118<br />
Seattle, WA 98122<br />
81 Paul Roberts Fusion Energy Foundation 119<br />
1121 - 244 S.W. - Sp-50<br />
Bothell, WA 98021<br />
82 Kevin McKeigue U.S. House of 122<br />
Democratic Candidate<br />
Representatives<br />
83 Gary Brill 8504 19th Ave. N.W. 122<br />
Seattle, WA 98117<br />
84 Richard H. Wood Conscience & Military Tax 124<br />
Campaign<br />
1830 24th Ave. E.<br />
Seattle, WA 98112<br />
85 (No Name) (No Address) 125<br />
xiii
I<br />
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page.<br />
86 Barbara Muller 615 14th Ave. E. #207 127<br />
Seattle, WA 98112<br />
87 Alan Rose 1710 Scannell Ave. 128<br />
. ...<br />
Olympia, WA 98502<br />
88- Josie E. Reichlin, CSJP Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace 130<br />
1663 Killarney Way<br />
P.O. Box 248<br />
Bellevue, WA 98009-0248<br />
89 Daniel L. Raphael 4823-1/2 Erskine Way S.W. 130.<br />
Seattle, WA 98116<br />
90 " Mary Voegtlin Anderson 6844 30th Avenue N.E. 131<br />
Seattle, WA 98115<br />
91 Dorothy Diehl P.O. Box 441 132<br />
Mt. Angel, OR 97362<br />
gym:<br />
92 Beth Buzzard 2016 E. State Ave. 133<br />
Olympia, WA 98506<br />
93 Charlotte Denniston Greenpeace 133<br />
11815 - 20th S.W.<br />
Seattle, WA 98146<br />
94 Art Powell 10007 - 19th S.W. 134<br />
Seattle, WA 98146<br />
95 Daniel Spatz 17 Sparrow Lane 134<br />
White Salmon, WA 98672<br />
96 Mr. & Mrs. Robert H. Ferber 9052 39th Ave. S.W. 135<br />
Seattle, WA 98136<br />
97 James Juntuner 2422 S.E. Yamhill 135<br />
Portland, OR 97214<br />
98 Karin Gurno 6317 - 5th N.E. 136<br />
Seattle, WA 98115<br />
::N<br />
99 T. 0. Williams 900 North 6th 137<br />
Renton, WA 98055<br />
100 Kenneth R. Hopkins 3001 Monta Vista 137<br />
Olympia, WA 98501<br />
101 M. J. Szulinski 1305 Hains 138<br />
Richland, WA 99352<br />
102 Cornelius Lopez Route 5, Box 198 139<br />
Vashon Island, WA 98070<br />
103 James P. Thomas E. 414 Augusta Avenue 139<br />
Spokane, WA 992O7<br />
xiv
t<br />
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer-- Affiliation/Address Paae<br />
104 Laine McLaughlin 3446 12th Avenue West 141<br />
Seattle, WA 98119<br />
105 Gerry Bennett 14416 S.E. 37th 143<br />
Bellevue, WA 98006<br />
106 .. George Erb. 16705 Maplewild Ave..S.W. 143<br />
Seattle, WA 98166<br />
107 Joan Mootry Rt. 1, Box 554 144<br />
Spokane, WA 99204<br />
108 Kenneth W. Burchell Spokane, WA 99210 145<br />
109 Evabelle Myers P.O. Box 582 146<br />
Green Acres, WA 99016<br />
110. William Harper Houff,Ph.D. 147<br />
111 - Slade Gorton SH-513 Hart Senate Office 149<br />
14f7 U.S. Senator Building<br />
Washington, DC 20510<br />
pptt<br />
cl><br />
112 Dick Ellis , . Director 152<br />
Eastern Washington/Senator Gorton<br />
113 Vernon R. Hill Hamlet Rt. Box 1375 152<br />
Seaside, OR 97138<br />
- 114 Mr. & Mrs. Richard Rosenberg 3426 N.E. 19th Ave. 153<br />
Portland, OR 97212<br />
115 Melissa J. Webster 1235 Isaacs 153<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
°^^°• 116 Governor Booth Gardner Olympia, WA 98504 154<br />
(Presented by Curtis Eschels,<br />
Special Assistant on Energy<br />
Issues).<br />
117 Gretchen de Grasse 127 Whitman St. 156<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
.<br />
118 Claudia E. Patterson Rt. 2, Box 122 157<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
.119 Lisa Lyons 307B East Main Street 157<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
120 Paul H. Yancy 224 N. Bellevue Ave. 158<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
121 C. S. Weiler 224 N. Bellevue Ave. 160<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
122 Sonia Trapani 1405 School Avenue 162<br />
R.R. 6<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
Xv
II<br />
Comment<br />
Letter No. Rev iewer Affiliation/Address Page<br />
123 Frank Trapani Portland, OR 97208 163<br />
124 Shirley Hagman 123 E ast Maple 164"<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99352<br />
125 Candace Pierce 525 Bryant 165<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
126 Gregory Adams (No Address) Tri-Cities 166<br />
127 Barbara Clark P.O. Box 1222 167<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
128 Sam Volpentest Tri-City Industrial Development 168<br />
Executive Vice President -<br />
Council<br />
901 N. Colorado<br />
Kennewick, W.4 99336<br />
129 Andrew R. .Gardner 1212 N.E. Brazee 170<br />
Portland, OR 97212:<br />
130 Victoria A. Seever 413 S. Almon, #3 172<br />
Moscow, ID 83843<br />
i<br />
131 Bonnie Rathod 615 S. Washington 174<br />
Port Angeles, WA 98362<br />
132 Mr. & Mrs. Rodger J. Anderson 3644 N.E. 46th Ave. 174<br />
Portland, OR 97213<br />
IvAq..<br />
I<br />
133 Edward Tenny, Administrator City of Portland 175<br />
Bureau of Water Works<br />
1120S.W. 5th Avenue<br />
Portland, OR 97204-1926<br />
134 Gene Mueller, Mayor City of Lewiston 176<br />
P.O. Box 617<br />
Lewiston, ID 83501<br />
135 -Ruth Riordan 2347 N.E. 8th Avenue 177<br />
Portland, OR 97212<br />
136 Frederick E. Ellis P.O. Box 462 178<br />
Shaw Island, WA 98286<br />
137 Jerrolyn Hall 218 S. Wasson 179<br />
Coos Bay, OR 97420<br />
138 J. Daniel Kinney, Jr. 703 Beacon 180<br />
Yakima, WA 98901<br />
139 Chet Orloff 3315 Northwest Savier St. 182<br />
Portland, OR 97210<br />
140 Senator Al Bauer 49th District 182<br />
401-C Legislative Bldg.<br />
Olympia, WA 98504<br />
xvi<br />
4
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page<br />
141 J. Richard Nokes 14650 S.W. 103rd Ave. 183<br />
Tigard, OR 97224<br />
142 Carl R. Johnson 4735 35th Avenue, N.E. 185<br />
Seattle, WA 98105<br />
143 Paul H. Yancey 224 N. Bellevue Ave. 186<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
144 C. S. Weiler 224 N. Bellevue Ave. 188<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
145 Dorothy Linn 4617 S.E. 43rd 190<br />
Portland, OR 97206<br />
146 Shari Youngstrom Box 121 191<br />
Hines, OR 97738<br />
147 Clarence Barnett Member, NW Citizens Forum on 192<br />
. e Assistant Mayor Defense Waste<br />
916 So. 17th Avenue<br />
Yakima, WA 98902<br />
r _ 148 Michael L. Clark 1008 Prospect Ave. N.E. 197<br />
Olympia, WA 98506<br />
0` 149 Frederick S. Adair House Energy & Utilities 198<br />
t^_<br />
Research Analyst<br />
Committee<br />
Washington State Legislature<br />
Olympia, WA 98504<br />
150 Dick Bogle, Commissioner Bureau of Water Works 198<br />
)~4..:,.. 1120 S.W. 5th Ave.<br />
Portland, OR 97204-1926<br />
151 Ray Dram, Jr. 525 Seamont Lane 199<br />
Edmonds, WA 98020<br />
152 Janet J. Barleman Religious Society of Friends 201<br />
(Quakers)<br />
4312 S.E. Stark St.<br />
Portland, OR 97215<br />
153 Byron Hunt, D.O. 643 Pearson 202<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
154 Eric J. & Marilyn B. Lindell 7028 11th N.W. 202<br />
Seattle, WA 98117<br />
155 Busse Nutley 49th District 203<br />
State Representative House Office Bldg., Room 316<br />
Olympia, WA 98504<br />
156 Dick Nelson 32nd District 205<br />
State Representative<br />
House Office Bldg.<br />
Olympia, WA 98504<br />
157 Bill Dempsey 325 N.W. Bailey 208<br />
Pendleton, OR 97801<br />
xvii
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation /Address Page..<br />
158 John F. Walenta 420 N. 39, Apt. 303 210<br />
Seattle, WA 98103<br />
159 Heather McIntosh 11232 - 11th Ave. S.W. 211<br />
Seattle, WA 98146<br />
160 Margretta McIntosh 11232 - 11th Ave. S.W. 212<br />
Seattle, WA 98146<br />
161 Aileen Jeffries P.O. Box 295 212<br />
Winthrop, WA 98862<br />
162 John Mabrey, Mayor City of the Dalles 214<br />
313 Court Street<br />
The Dalles, OR 97058<br />
I^<br />
I<br />
w0,<br />
P7<br />
C`,1!',<br />
163 Faith Mayhew Affiliated Tribes of 216<br />
ATNI Executive Director<br />
Northwest Indians<br />
1425 N.E. Irving, Suite 102<br />
Portland, OR 97232<br />
164 Frank Dixon Northwest District Assoc. 218<br />
President 1819 N.W. Everett, #205<br />
Portland, OR 97209<br />
165 Douglas McIntosh 903 Grant Avenue S. 220<br />
Seattle, WA 98055<br />
166 Helen C. Bushman 4835 S.W. Chestnut Pl. 221<br />
Beaverton, OR 97005<br />
167 Lynn W. Baker 3938 N. Overlook Blvd. 221<br />
Portland, OR 97227<br />
168 John L. & Gloria Murphy 6546 - 37th N.E. 222<br />
Seattle, WA 98115<br />
169 Susan B. Johnson 1501 S.W. Elizabeth St. 222<br />
Portland, OR 97201<br />
170 Julie Ann Boyle Fruitland, WA 99129 223<br />
171 M. W. Alsworth, Manager Department of Energy 225<br />
of Reactor Safety .<br />
625 Marion St. N.E.<br />
Salem, OR 97310<br />
172 Sue Watkins, Manager Port of Kennewick 247<br />
Kennewick, WA 99336<br />
173 Carol C. Hansen City of Vancouver 250<br />
Management Analyst<br />
City Hall, 210 East 13th St.<br />
P.O. Box 1995<br />
Vancouver, WA 98668-1995<br />
174 Tim Connor <strong>Hanford</strong> Education Action 251<br />
Staff Researcher<br />
League<br />
South 325 Oak Street<br />
Spokane, WA 99204<br />
xvii1
J<br />
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page<br />
175 Charles P. Schade, M.D. Multnomah County Oregon - 258<br />
Health Officer<br />
Department of Human Services<br />
Disease Control Office<br />
426 S.W. Stark Street<br />
Portland, OR 97204<br />
176 David Shively 606 Jefferson 260<br />
La Grande, OR 97850<br />
177 Dawn Y. Sumner - P.O. Box 107 278<br />
Index, WA 98256<br />
178 S. Timothy Wapato Columbia River Inter-Tribal 282<br />
Executive Director<br />
Fish Commission<br />
975 S.E. Sandy Blvd.,<br />
Suite 202<br />
Portland, OR 97214<br />
179 F. S. Bayley 900 University St. 6A 288<br />
Seattle, WA 98101-2728<br />
180 Roger C. Brown, Ph.D., CHP Rt. #1, Box 1629 288<br />
Benton City, WA 99320<br />
181 Patricia M. Carpenter Rt. #1, Box 1799 289<br />
& Family Hermiston, OR 97838<br />
182 Jalair L. Box 1231 N.E. 92nd St. 290<br />
Seattle, WA 98115<br />
183 Richard D. Moore, M.D. 53236 E. Marmot Rd. 291<br />
Sandy, OR 97055<br />
184 John V. Evans Office of the Governor 291<br />
Governor<br />
State Capitol<br />
Boise, ID 83720<br />
.<br />
185 E. Zahn 295 Fleet 292<br />
Port Ludlow, WA 98365<br />
186 Jennifer Paine North Olympic Peace 293<br />
Fellowship<br />
890 Mount Angeles Road<br />
Port Angeles, WA 98362<br />
187 Diana Bradshaw Audubon Society of Portland 294<br />
5151 Northwest Cornell Road<br />
Portland, OR 97210<br />
188 Rena M. Strahl 9367 S.W. Morrison St. 297<br />
Portland, OR 97225<br />
189 George Halekas & Family. Star Route 298<br />
Wauconda, WA 98859<br />
190 Carolyn L. Siebe 1708 West Brown 300<br />
Pasco, WA 99301<br />
191 Ann Bradford Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 301<br />
XiX
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address. Page<br />
192 Victor Atiyeh Office of the Governor 301<br />
Governor<br />
State Capitol<br />
Salem, OR 97310<br />
193 David J. Tauben, M.D. 901 Boren, Suite 1776 302<br />
Seattle, WA 98104<br />
194 Alan Wasserman 1512 Fruitdale Ave. 304<br />
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814<br />
195 Delores Porch 3245 S.E. 136th Ave. 305<br />
Portland, OR 97236<br />
196 Pam D. Gardine 7846 Houser Lake Rd. 305<br />
Post Falls, ID 83854<br />
197 Nick Arnis P.O. Box 604 306<br />
Portland, OR 97207<br />
uN<br />
198 Audrey Moore 53236 E. Marmot Rd. 307<br />
Sandy, OR 97055<br />
199 Pamela C. Behring 1418 E. 13th 307<br />
Spokane, WA 99202<br />
200 Christy A. Crandall 2134 N.E. 51st St. 308<br />
Portland, OR 97213<br />
201 Marilyn Couch 1705 N.W. 32nd 309<br />
Portland, OR 97210<br />
202 Marilyn Lohr 5502 S.E. Firwood 311<br />
Milwaukie, OR 97222<br />
203 Carolyn Hempstead 24021 S.W. 374 Street 313<br />
Enumclaw, WA 98022<br />
204 Gary Bickett 15105 Twin Fir Rd. 314<br />
Lake Oswego, OR 97034<br />
205 Peter Ford 704 S.E. 15th 315<br />
Portland, OR 97214<br />
206 Norm Buske SEARCH Technical Services 315<br />
HCR 11 - Box 17<br />
Davenport, WA 99122<br />
207 Robbie Earon Salem Audubon Society 318<br />
Conservation Chair P.O. Box 17873<br />
Salem, OR 97305<br />
208 Philip L. Bereano E.I.C.P. FH-40 319<br />
Associate Professor<br />
University of Washington<br />
Seattle, WA 98195<br />
209 Al Mangan W. 2122 Dean 321<br />
Spokane, WA 99201<br />
xx
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address- Page<br />
210 Jo Broadwell Students for Nuclear 327<br />
Awareness<br />
705 Division<br />
La Grande, OR 97850<br />
211 Ida Mae Hamilton Rt. 4, Box 132 333<br />
Vashon, WA 98070<br />
212 Tom Heston P.O. Box 95722 333<br />
Seattle, WA 98145-2722<br />
213 Merryl Woodard 1580 Skyview Lane N 1 334<br />
Hayden Lake, ID 83835<br />
214 Margaret D. Strachan City of Portland 334<br />
Commissioner of Public<br />
1220 S.W. 5th<br />
Utilities Portland, OR 97204<br />
215 Yakima Indian Nation c/o. Russell Jim 337<br />
Nuclear Waste Program<br />
P.O. Box 151<br />
Toppenish, WA 98948<br />
216 David Burroughs, President Save the Resources Committee 391<br />
P.O. Box 692<br />
Port Townsend, WA 98368<br />
217 Bernard J. Coughlin Gonzaga University 395<br />
Spokane, WA 99258<br />
218 Dennis C. Illingworth R.S. Wasco-Sherman 456<br />
Supervising Sanitarian<br />
Public Health Department<br />
400 East Fifth Street<br />
Court House Annex A<br />
The Dalles, OR 97058<br />
219 Betty McArdle 3740 S.W. Comus St. 457<br />
Portland, OR 97219<br />
N<br />
220 Terri L. Barfield 817 - 14th Way 462<br />
Edmonds, WA 98020<br />
221 Gerald H. Bosch 648 S. Booker Rd. 462<br />
Othello, WA 99344<br />
222 Kifar Yosemite 1204 Eighth, Apt. 4 463<br />
La Grande, OR 97850<br />
.<br />
223 Warren A. Bishop, Chair State of Washington 463<br />
Nuclear Waste Board<br />
Mail Stop PV-11<br />
Olympia, WA 98504<br />
224 Thomas L. Milne Southwest Washington Health 560<br />
Executive Director<br />
District<br />
Vancouver/Clark County Health<br />
Center<br />
P.O. Box 1870<br />
2000 Fort Vancouver 'Way<br />
Vancouver, WA 98668<br />
xxi
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page<br />
225 Marilyn Christofferson 817 14th 'Way 561<br />
Edmonds, WA 98020<br />
226 John R. Christofferson 817 14th Way 562<br />
Edmonds, WA 98020<br />
227 Karen Cotton Silver Beach 562<br />
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814<br />
228 Marilyn Hales 412 Sherman Avenue - 563<br />
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814<br />
229 Heidi M. Edinger S. 2335 Silver Beach 563<br />
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814<br />
230 Robert Rose Greenpeace Northwest 564<br />
4649 Sunnyside Ave. North.<br />
Seattle, WA 98103<br />
231 - William H. Burke, Director Confederated Tribes of the 568<br />
Umatilla Nuclear Waste<br />
Umatilla Indian Reservation<br />
Study Program P.O. Box 638<br />
Pendleton, OR 97801<br />
232 Representative Dean Sutherland Legislative Building 588<br />
17th District Olympia, WA 98504<br />
233 W. F. Lawless Paine College 589<br />
.Assistant Professor<br />
1235 15th Street<br />
of Mathematics Augusta, GA 30910<br />
234 Nez Perce Tribe Council of Energy Resource 605<br />
Nuclear Waste Policy<br />
Tribes<br />
Act Program 1580 Logan Street, Suite 400<br />
Denver, CO 80203<br />
235 Mari Hoffmann Nelson 4716 Pleasant Hill Rd. 623<br />
Kelso, WA 98626<br />
236 Mr. & Mrs. Goodwin W. Hardin 44405 So. Coast Hwy. 623<br />
Neskowin, OR 97149<br />
237 Colleen Murphy 815 36th Ave. E 624<br />
Seattle, WA 98112<br />
238 Dale R. Evans. U.S. Department of Commerce 625<br />
Division Chief<br />
National Oceanic and<br />
Atmospheric Adm.<br />
National Marine Fisheries<br />
Service<br />
Environmental & Technical<br />
Services Div.<br />
847 N.E. 19th Avenue,<br />
Suite 350<br />
Portland, OR 97232-2279<br />
xxii
I.<br />
y<br />
Comment<br />
Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page<br />
239 Robert E. Browning, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 626<br />
Division of Nuclear Material<br />
Commission<br />
Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555<br />
240 Dan W. Reicher, Attorney - Natural Resources Defense , 638<br />
Council<br />
1350 New York Ave., N.W.<br />
Washington, DC 20005<br />
241 David Cottingham U.S. Department of Commerce 646<br />
Ecology and Conservation<br />
National Oceanic and<br />
Division<br />
Atmospheric Adm.<br />
Washington, DC 20230<br />
242 Robert Alvarez Environmental Policy -.647<br />
Director, Nuclear Project<br />
Institute<br />
218D Street, S.E.<br />
Washington, DC 20003<br />
.<br />
243 David G. Davis _..U.S'. Environmental 689<br />
Acting Director<br />
Protection Agency<br />
Office of Federal Activities Washington, DC 20460<br />
V<br />
xxiii
Processing of Written Continents<br />
1.0 INTRODUCTION<br />
This volume has been prepared in compliance with Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ)<br />
regulations that provide for the consideration of comments received during the agency and<br />
public comment period (40 CFR 1503.4 and 1506.6). This volume contains copies of the<br />
243 letters sent to the Department of Energy (DOE) by state and federal agencies, interested<br />
groups, and individuals during the 120-day public comment period in 1986.<br />
Notice of availability of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Disposal of<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Waste, hereafter referred to as the draft<br />
<strong>EIS</strong>, appeared in the Federal Register on April 11, 1986. The Federal Register notice invited<br />
comment on the draft <strong>EIS</strong> within the 120-day comment period which began April 11, 1986, and<br />
ended August 9, 1986.<br />
Over 1,600 copies of the draft <strong>EIS</strong> were distributed to individuals and groups including<br />
reviewers of the April 1, 1983, Notice of 'Intent; state and federal agencies; legislators;<br />
public libraries and the media. In addition, over 6,000 summaries of the draft <strong>EIS</strong> were distributed<br />
throughout the Northwest.<br />
,gt, 1.1 PROCESSING OF WRITTEN COMMENTS.<br />
At the beginning of the public comment period, a process was established to receive,<br />
document, and prepare responses to written public comments. Each letter, upon receipt ,. was<br />
assigned an identification number (the large bold number stamped in the upper righthand corner<br />
of each letter facsimile page in this volume).<br />
The letters were reviewed and specific comments within each letter were identified.<br />
Each comment was assigned a number according to topic. Over 100 topics, which addressed DOE<br />
policy, technical and editorial issues, were identified and compiled into 10 major groups, as<br />
organized in Volume 4 under the following headings:<br />
1. Civilian repository<br />
2. Defense waste program -<br />
,,.^.»,,. 3. <strong>EIS</strong> scope and preparation<br />
4. Applicable laws and regulations<br />
5. Data base and facilities<br />
6. Affected environment<br />
7. Disposal alternatives and technologies<br />
8. Short-term impacts<br />
9. Long-term impacts<br />
10. Organization and presentation.<br />
Some of the letters focused on one topic and contained only one or two comments. Other<br />
letters, however, addressed a broad range of issues. Frequently, a particular issue was<br />
raised in a number of different letters. In these instances a single paraphrased comment was<br />
developed to represent the common concern of these letters and a single response was provided<br />
in Volume 4.<br />
xxv
Finding Responses to Comments<br />
Figure 1 shows how the comments were handled from receipt to inclusion in the final <strong>EIS</strong><br />
Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4,<br />
Topic Key<br />
Policy Areas Issues -<br />
Comments fir.. Responses — 0 Volume 4<br />
Topic . Key<br />
Comment Technical Areas Issues Action -- Volumes<br />
Letters Comments 1 g and 3<br />
or Revision<br />
Editorial Action -- Editorial<br />
Comments<br />
0 Correction of Text,<br />
Tables or Figures<br />
Volumes:<br />
0 1, 2 and 3<br />
FIGURE 1. Flow Diagram for Treatment of Public Convent Letters<br />
1.2 FINDING RESPONSES TO COMMENTS<br />
C1<br />
l,.<br />
All 243 comment: letters were photostatically reduced and reproduced as received and are<br />
included in this volume of the final <strong>EIS</strong>.- A numerical index has been provided in the front<br />
of this volume to identify the individual or organizations who submitted each comment letter.<br />
A tracking system has been devised to facilitate determination of how a particular passage<br />
in a comment letter was responded to in Volume 4. Each paraphrased comment in Volume 4<br />
is assigned a number; these numbers appear in the margins of the Volume 5 letters to identify<br />
the passage or passages corresponding toparticular comments in Volume 4. In this way, every<br />
comment contained in the letters can be traced to at least one (and sometimes more than one)<br />
paraphrased comment in Volume 4.<br />
1.3 REFERENCES<br />
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1985. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.<br />
40 CFR 1503 (Council on Environmental Quality), Commenting.<br />
40 CFR 1506 (Council on Environmental Quality), Other Requirements of NEPA.<br />
xxvi
s a 10 4 0 1<br />
001 001<br />
N<br />
MG? ], "86<br />
RECEMD<br />
MAY 13 1986<br />
rJ to Holton/<strong>EIS</strong><br />
U. 5: :`epartncut of Energy<br />
Ric.. gad operations Office<br />
P, v. :•x 550<br />
...._ tsl, WA 99352<br />
Oatx' Mr. Holton:<br />
NCMI A. MCNCHA, MAYOR<br />
awAn c,w<br />
4 7S<br />
C<br />
J ® ^<br />
0<br />
^OLh0E0 t o le.<br />
»kane City Council is Concern.:d about the defense waste<br />
ca :::ly stored at <strong>Hanford</strong> and has instauuted our staff to make<br />
Ce:Nful review of the ehvirm,wen`.al i,.a t statement recently<br />
is .ad. Follow'^g ' i review we unanimously adopted the<br />
ac::bched vesolutir..n`',. 96-38.<br />
- I:^nse enter this Smrmal resolution in your records and call upon<br />
., kt 3nytUm for further cpmment.<br />
W-..: preCiate 'Yi:e difficult task you must face in Pealing with<br />
s oh complex -r, :nicai issues, but hope you realize that Spokane,<br />
b-: of hte Lory and geography, is a population concentration<br />
equal t: that of to y State of Wyoming in which the major<br />
t:a::epox'a`.Su:: co.fil.r. lie atop a sole source aquifer, in front<br />
c_ three naspitala cad a high school, old passes through the<br />
c,c:csr of the la. g,st urban concentration between Minneapolis and<br />
Sa, ae. We .. a deeply concen:ed about transpo rtation of all<br />
hsza ,duus materials, •.•:eluding Especially nuclear waste, because<br />
of that unique geograp,dc situation.<br />
Sin;erely,<br />
4.4'^ '^('^<br />
VSO:fi HcNeill<br />
Mayor<br />
p9..ic.56<br />
Y E S 0 L D T I 0 N NO. 8 6- 38<br />
WHEREAS, the Department of Energy hoe issued its. Draft<br />
Enviroamental Impact Statement on disposal of defense .waste<br />
currently stored at Nanfordp and<br />
WHEREAS, the two basic . 'options are to continue to attire<br />
the are ... t and future nuclear seats at <strong>Hanford</strong> or to ship it<br />
elsewhere; and<br />
WHEREAS, continued storage at <strong>Hanford</strong> mean. the transporting<br />
mean of future defense ..clear of.waste to <strong>Hanford</strong> and storage elsewhere<br />
the transporting existing defense nuclear waste from<br />
and<br />
WHEREAS, any transportation of radioactive material poses<br />
some danger; and<br />
WHEREAS, transportation through urban creates more<br />
risk than through lees densely populated areas, and<br />
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Indicates<br />
that the Department of Energy will make available money to ensure<br />
adequatemergency response and that federal support is also<br />
available a free -Federal Emerges, Management Administration,<br />
Environmental Protection Agency. Food and Drug Administration.<br />
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and<br />
WHEREAS, local goveremen[s bear the ultimate responsibility<br />
for emergency response plan. i.g; -- NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY<br />
RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SPOYANE:<br />
1. The Departm ent of Energy is urged to employ" the most F q F r; v<br />
favorable technological to solidify and ^store hazardous J L<br />
.at.. at their point of origin, and.<br />
2. The Department of Energy is urged to choose that *'time F v rl . q<br />
which creates the least risk and requires the least amount of L L<br />
nationvide transportation of defense waste, end<br />
3. The Department of Energy and ether federal agencies<br />
are urged to make available to local emergency r.a ... me providers<br />
the support promised in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement..<br />
Adopted by the City Council May 5. 198.6../.<br />
App d ea to my<br />
3.4.2.24<br />
Aasiatsnt City At<br />
",'a aF 1XE M/.YOR/FlFn1RMR rpY a Act, .W E. aF9'wwnms M1A61/^!m),#]AS
002 003<br />
Dot<br />
RECEIVED DOE•RL.<br />
MAY 21 IM<br />
wMDrvis IoN<br />
isa3 a'v2<br />
//^ ^ S•E, /I'i cv-h,Snh<br />
Pc/-t/aA^^ OR' 97x/6<br />
c _ United States Department of the Inte rior<br />
BOREAu OF RECLAMATION<br />
iEDER^L'a ILDINC, 3. 0Ġa'0.iNM'3!' -<br />
ieux,111<br />
PIN 150<br />
x120.2<br />
R^ q^i^E> q/>C p<br />
i0. WND DOEAL<br />
ET MAY 21 gas<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
A.,C-rf lYa ^Ao h . /C /<br />
u s n^^^ o ^ ch e/^y /2,^:>l/ K ^ ^,^^R^aH^<br />
MAY 15 sm<br />
N<br />
Rich Hot WETS -<br />
U.S. Department of Energy<br />
Richland Operations Office<br />
P.O. Box 550<br />
Richland, Washington 99352<br />
_<br />
. `T"'"3^f<br />
?!'La, ./ 9 6•<br />
.,,>^^^e ,^^.^<br />
c^^ u^-^ ' .7A .o*t-^--w,^^./^^-a-//<br />
^,z.^CC•C?y ^esm^ in^ .r.B-wi..snc-„^ ^i ^+Ca-'hc-P-B^^Fi<br />
Dear Sir 3.3.1.1<br />
2.3.2.12<br />
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense High-<br />
Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Benton County, Washington (ER 86/612). has<br />
been reviewed by appropriate personnel within our organization, and we have no<br />
objections to the content of the document. Please let us knoll' if we can be of<br />
further assistance in the review process.<br />
Sincerely yours,<br />
3.3.1.4<br />
Officer<br />
CC: Commissioner, Washington, D.C. (Attention: W-150)<br />
3.3.5.4<br />
3.1.8.13<br />
2!]A+^'CtYL.^ (' i ba•cL-2r^ /9/J_^- -^7L ^^ 2.. m^C..
Ea<br />
--Z --<br />
003 004<br />
oea<br />
a.nn,om<br />
4u'RR<br />
smn<br />
OD 3 Pq Vj-<br />
m:u w<br />
net W. Lee<br />
2FIX^f@TeVaThrenue E., Seattle. W.shi.9t n 1¢<br />
3 1 8, 13<br />
' ,oet^ -'CIC<br />
f. ne 19R<br />
kon. John Herrington 164<br />
Secretary of Energy<br />
Am<br />
^^ 1r > ti d,^c o-,^^ D L ^C f:la - - D_S. De ertment of Energy ixi^^<br />
n 7// qAn_ Yoshi eg^Pn gC 20555<br />
/sieve q,, anl,Osc
l 004<br />
Secretary Herrington<br />
9 June INN<br />
Secretary Herrington<br />
9 June 1906'<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.2.1<br />
2.2.9<br />
2.2.9<br />
2.2.9<br />
2.2.9<br />
2.2.9<br />
2.2.7<br />
3.1.4.30<br />
reasonable line of argument is unsustainable led ayy in significant part<br />
because of the poor record at <strong>Hanford</strong> and other 00^ instal latlons. Those<br />
charged with the stewardship of the notion's largest inventory of<br />
radioactive waste have done a pwr Job. OOE's plans for future stewardship<br />
are accordingly susyact. Remedial action will not change public<br />
perceptions overnight. But the damage done by history will not diminish<br />
until cleanup is underway at <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
In sum, there is no substantial ar9unent for the no-action<br />
alternative as a permagnent course of ac ts on; theeyre has been far too much<br />
cy difficult, but<br />
I e share it ha thedvimNimpl ftp isit dra<br />
to fssuing<br />
<strong>EIS</strong>: the time to e<br />
started is now..<br />
once Fundin gy . The cost estimafes in the draft <strong>EIS</strong> are both large and<br />
rta .9 van the extensive engineering still to be carried out. Even<br />
the least costly action alternative, however, is priced at $2 billion, a<br />
figure that my prove to be conservative.<br />
The high cost of cleanup has blocked remedial action at <strong>Hanford</strong> for a<br />
Ions time. That hurdle is no lower now. surely, with large federal<br />
deficits add increasing yressure an defense appropriations. <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
cleanup still competes with the GOO-shiNavy, deficit reduction, and other<br />
national VVriorlties. Can any programmatic decision resulting fr om the ITS<br />
be funded2<br />
While the one-time cast of cleanup is high, that is an inappropriate<br />
perspective to Co ke on a pro ct that w 11, in any event, take more than a<br />
decade to complete. I urge OOE A to explore with Congress the establishment<br />
of a defense waste trust fund, setting aside a fixed sum each year to<br />
pay for activities at <strong>Hanford</strong> and other federal facilities share past<br />
practices I require remedial action. Alternatively a fixed percentage of<br />
he defense nuclear production budget could be pa {d into the trust fund<br />
each year, with the ay Mutionment set to enable timely completion of<br />
cleanup stall federal installations.<br />
The trust fund app roach would p ro vide g re ater assurance that the<br />
cleanup program can be Brought to a successful conclusion. Moreover, ta the<br />
smaller annual appropriations Into the trust fund would avoid s rk<br />
tradeoffs.<br />
Much additional analysis needs to be done before a trust fund can be<br />
Proposed legislatively. Nonetheless. the issue of financing cleanup should<br />
pe considered at this point. Otherwise, there is a real possibility that<br />
actions will be started but not completed because of cost; that sequence of<br />
events could, in turn, substanttallf magnify the environmental impact of<br />
any decision reached through this <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
Standards farmimeo circumstances. Under any of the alternatives<br />
that wou .N. ra sac ve ma erla TSTTn place. one could face a striking<br />
anomaly. If a high-level .safe repository were located at <strong>Hanford</strong>, one<br />
would nave long-1 l ved radionuclides buried at great expense 3,000 feet<br />
below the surface, while waterial of similar long-term hazard would be left<br />
30 feet below ground at the defense waste sites. This anomaly cannot be<br />
cured short of the Costliest option, excavating the single-shell tanks;<br />
even then complete clean. p cannot be assured. I believe it sensible,<br />
accordingly, to tackle to issue head on in the final <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
The essential point is that long-lived wastes at federal facilities<br />
comFri se a ..a unique Is ac So lon as the regulatory regime in force since<br />
1970 at inuesq it whposhe s oul be impossible<br />
for t conditio<br />
created anew.-it regulatory scheme assumes, however, nsatwestes rWdrii l Ee.<br />
created and handled in ways compatible with regulatory objectives. TMs is,<br />
not true of the wastes at <strong>Hanford</strong>,. hovever. Pttemptin y to restore nearsurface<br />
Conditions near the single- shell tanks to a state compatible with<br />
today's regulatory standards may be impossible. economically<br />
infeasible, managerially imprudent. or techni all al<br />
At the current state of technical knowledge, however, neither the<br />
ultimate level of cleanuC attainable nor the cost of aproaching or<br />
achievin g this level is known with confidence. For tha t reason, selecting<br />
any single action alternative appears insppropr;ate since the basis of a<br />
sound c nice is not .Yet developed. Enough in on does seem to be in<br />
hand, however, to rule out the no-action alternative. This partial<br />
decision can and should be made. now.<br />
-<br />
In addition. it may be useful to set an upper bound on<br />
occupational exposure resulting from cleanup, for the purpose. of guiding<br />
additional work.<br />
With that policy in place, cleanu p should begin, with<br />
ri_m..taa projects to prepare the Sr and Cs catsules for geologic<br />
Pffi —fo'excavate watt. from a near-surface tank; and to stabilize<br />
waste We ear-surface. tank. The ob j ective of these experiments wouldbe<br />
to improve WE'S understanding of the engineering and cost implications of<br />
the rated al paths available.<br />
The results of those experiments should then be discussed in a public<br />
document updatin g this <strong>EIS</strong>. public comment on that document, from the<br />
state of Rashtn9ton and other interested parties. should then form the<br />
basis of an another decision. That decision could, in turn, extend.<br />
experimental work in directions guided by experience. -<br />
This approach differs from the one implicit in the <strong>EIS</strong> process in<br />
three important resVects. First, implementation would begin without a<br />
final decision on tits remedial option to be chosen so that experience can<br />
influence future decisions. Second, those future decisions .would be<br />
subject to public review at decision points, the first of which wo uld be<br />
specified in the final <strong>EIS</strong>. Third, an important objective of remedial<br />
action in this initial stage is to improve our understanding of 'best<br />
available technology' for cleanup, rather th.n to proceed. as if that<br />
technology were known.<br />
The approach recommended here assumes that learning is transferable<br />
to later stages of cleanup, and that the pace of learning will be rapid<br />
enough to result in more effective dean.N lower occupational exposures,<br />
and lower costs. It is sea tY to believe that lessons will be learned from<br />
proceeding with cleanup. It is less clear that learning will be rapid, nor<br />
that lessons will be applied. That is why public review at later<br />
milestones isimperative so that confidence in DOE's technical program can<br />
betested and (one hopes] augmented.<br />
The seeing target of best available technology raises the Ossibility<br />
of revisiting tanks and other facilities cleaned up in earlier pRsacs of<br />
the program. Such repetitions should not beruled out. It is Worth<br />
noting, however, that setting a guideline on occupational exposure yeerr<br />
increment of environmental hazard reduction would establish a reasonable<br />
imit on repea e c eanups. a s ecay se. as the technology improves,<br />
2.2.11<br />
3.3.4.1<br />
3.4.1.1<br />
3.3.4.1<br />
2.3.2.3<br />
2.5.3<br />
2.5.3<br />
2.5.3<br />
2<br />
. 3 -
,y<br />
I<br />
F<br />
'S.<br />
on<br />
^ g<br />
"'<br />
4d<br />
'.+A<br />
0<br />
0®4 Q®5<br />
yrn<br />
Secretary Herrington. 9 June 1986<br />
,.<br />
United States Department of the Interior<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY<br />
the incremental benefits Of ep ea up should decline. A risk-benefit 'f',. WASHDIGTON, D.C.=40 rep .^ 4<br />
comparison of the value of re peated<br />
ted cleanup wilt accordingly set a -<br />
2.5.3 pramatic stopping rule: some c fill be riskier than the best<br />
technology can make them, but the risks bringing them to the best ER 861612<br />
attainable state outweigh the risks of leaving them as they ere.<br />
There is a likelihood that this incremental risk-benefit comparison.<br />
if applied to the existing situation. mould lead to the no-action Mr. Rich HoltaN®S<br />
alternative. That oath is precluded. however, by the policy arguments made U.S. Department of Energy<br />
above, concernin55 the broader implications of walking away from the <strong>Hanford</strong> Richland Opere tio. m Offlee<br />
2 C O legacy. Proceed i ny with implementation in the experimental mode suggested<br />
.<br />
p,0. Sox 55U<br />
5 . 3 here permits affected interests to explore with DDE the appropriate balance<br />
of risk and benefit as experience is gained.<br />
givh and, Washington 99352<br />
Dear Mr. Holten:<br />
ALG 2 I<br />
WMDIVISION'<br />
(A<br />
DOE is to be congratulated for Moving forward on an effort to clean<br />
The Dcpartmait of the In up Nanford. .The support of the states of Meahington and Oregon, antl the<br />
terior lens reviewed the d ra ft onvWnmental impact stetament<br />
Indian tribes whose ceded lands are affected, is fa Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> essential. if the cleanup ftf g b-Leve L Traosurenic and Tank Wastes, Benton Coon LY•<br />
is to succeed. That localsupport must be built in the difficult political Waspitgmn, and has the following comments.<br />
environment created b the commercial high-level repository program. Two<br />
methods of building that su yyort are discussed above: a defense waste Oeneral<br />
trust fund, to increase confidence that federal financing of cleanup will<br />
continue; and an experimental approach to implementation, which permits<br />
identification of lea gues In the 1960'1 the Atomic Ene Cemmisgon frequently<br />
that radinaetive wage<br />
learned and consensus-building on hew to proceed r6Y suggested<br />
next.<br />
could he isolated for tens of thousands of years at a surface disposal site by relying ou<br />
The need htl to act wd Milo confidence is the<br />
messy9e of'the draft £IB building consensus an<br />
. IL should be the guiding theme of the<br />
Mines actions selected..<br />
cc: Governor Booth Gardner<br />
Mon. Russell Jim<br />
Mr. Michael Lawrence<br />
Sincerely,<br />
• e<br />
Thai Kni H. N.Le<br />
that during Our short recorded h istory aiglneered app roaches to the isolation of anymhg, rye<br />
much less such hesard oes materiel+, have not P roven W be re liable for pari nds sutftet out 3.3. 4 8<br />
to amble radiation emisalon levels of rodfunu,itdes m decay m an immvu ous level. h,<br />
respoise to these concerns, the co nsent of disposing of high-level andrew tran k, (TRU)<br />
wages in a deep geologic repository was ban. This co nc ept De based on the p ro m is e List<br />
Montauk, formations an -favorable hyd ro logic. oberaetaiatics; whin combined with<br />
Into<br />
engineered borriere, would f orm multiple barriers to the release of the disposed wages<br />
the e<br />
nv ironment Yoe more than 10,000 years and reduce me possibi lity of !amen<br />
mvuslod in me d istant futu re .<br />
Even though me re has been extensive Wort &voted to me location of a "Hold.<br />
geologic repository f or OWED n gene ra ted radioeetive wastes In me la g decade, the tack<br />
he for f ro m complete. Th is k sane i ndication of the complexity of me Look end the<br />
degree of co nc e rn expression! by the pelag e met how high-level &W TRU waste can be 3.5. 1,a 57<br />
sa fely disposed. Us Department of Energy (DOE) soggegs that similar wa ges at<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> c ou ld be disposed near le nd surface wig ioolati,n dapendent solely on<br />
engincered bariere and on now, through what Is, at .present, about 200 feet of<br />
unsaturated sgtr send, end Mee t, The Department of Me In t er i or conside rs Ink<br />
sugges tium to be without sufficient fumigation.<br />
The Pronosed Ac tion<br />
Prom the sentent of the draft statement, i nc luding appeadlOes, and f rom discussions wig<br />
DOE et Stodda rd, It would Mppem that ecit. With einie lb ME is prepared to move.<br />
Moved perta in b astest, di
.. __....__..__.<br />
005<br />
i 1,<br />
In<br />
3.1.4.1 ma il ai s<br />
3.3.5.4<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
Mr. Rich Holtenius tr ip 24 M 2<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
oombi mtian4bil0ml alter ative, the wastes Will be treated) a medhg re the type of<br />
Dmitty N which the waste Is stbrotl, rot by mdieHOn level. For example, wastes atarN<br />
I. dahlesaâ police and rawly gmereted tank waneswill be d isposed of in 9a100.<br />
repositories, aM wastes stored in single- all tanks wi ll be disposed on Bite and buried<br />
beer aorface. However, the wastes, whether May we stored N airgle-meâ Or dble- a<br />
t appear to contain almost identi cal types erg amour , of radionuc lides.<br />
Apparently, ale method of dispoed as rot dependent upon the eareeterietics of Me<br />
wanes but rp.. lair ram of retrieval. Additional Wadies should be implemented aM<br />
otgoitg Studies co mpleted before any na tions we recommended far them al of singlesa<br />
â tend, warm, pre-1940 TRU parted wastes, and contaminated sU sites. T he se<br />
studies should md rem nume rous ismes such as in fi l tr ation ra tes, fluid movement In the<br />
unaturwted xda , radimeelide and camil a ea t port b y surface water, rumerical model<br />
davelopmmt, iamb rates of wane farms, retrieval methods for tank wastes and TRU<br />
dried ..at., ane election of hew wane terms.<br />
no statement falls to ideattfy the mix ed wane (radioactive and mmadime tive toxic<br />
1 c hemical wastes) inven t or y at to Hmfohl site. Rnselede of m used waste<br />
oral gmb ft]ogic smen. inn dispassion of the Bpologicndis Mobility ernai the<br />
dra ft st atem en t i ndicates tat most of the radi oac tive wastes from the damle-sbe â<br />
tenke wi ll be .remov ed a nd troaM ... od to a deep gmIWic repositaryt however, doubleshe<br />
ll tank residents ineludi, wane treatm ent chemicals will be buried near the surface<br />
at the <strong>Hanford</strong> site. The caraeteristics of these residuals sh ould be defined, (i.e., are<br />
they clemifi ed as low-level wastes) bef or en<br />
e the DOE recommends a dvp al approach fa<br />
Near resddmis.<br />
3.1.6. 1 a<br />
characteristics wiLL be<br />
3.3.2.5<br />
The "andices, matte nhg supplem entary materiel f ar Volume 1, we more bdnm rative<br />
.bat DDE% pla a then Is t he mein body of the statement end demrlbe uncertainties N<br />
estimating effeeta of different processes eM efapafll techniques and redio4,gical<br />
exposure. The appendices and discussion win-DOE (Richland) lead a to co nclude tat<br />
DOE ie at Prepared to p ro ceed a either re trieval m implace stabi lization of gottashe<br />
ll te al, ..sine or pee-1990 TRU cried .flares. There appear to be tar many mop ose.<br />
manna red with efthcr ac tion. Retrieval need trea[mmt t ealm.1. ins seemnc . uerta in.<br />
The wanes arc at adequately eltarmterized. The physical mg chemical stabi lities of<br />
the wastes we at adequately Kneen. The perf or ma nc e and stabi lity of Proposed<br />
.renewed barriers are n erta in. Dale ere iredw equ. a Infiltration rates. Amiuctle<br />
mmeriical moda ls on unsaturated now and tr ansp or t are iudequ.le bon in theme and N<br />
y<br />
J e 1.1 e 1 com putational teeaque. The re fo re to draft sta tem ent does at p rovide adequate<br />
Informati on to accurately assess any of Ste altsmatives f or d isposal of Trensonnic and<br />
3.2.4.3<br />
Took Waste. The final state m ent should evaluate the aMbloeW research waidrot to<br />
make d abf ona abet duppeal of bon wane categ ories.<br />
ERYM.mi Sp ecies<br />
The bald eagle anal pegegrb e, fale. were identified in the draft statement ore scurrhlg<br />
winin a in close proximity W Ste Hen[oN Reserva tion Other nreataed m eaengerad<br />
species that mold be alts led by Ste antlered laki, of contaminants into Ste river<br />
include the Colambian white-fe lled des aM hag eagle end peregrine falcon le the<br />
Cadmbia River GeSe. The Department of Energy as respoaible W initiate consultation<br />
with Ste se rv ice p ap er B ec ome V.) and (c) of ne EMargered Spates Act if R Is<br />
determlad tat a Rat ed spsles may be effected.<br />
Mr. Mah HOltentElS<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL 3<br />
erp<br />
24 1"<br />
WM DI VISION<br />
Additionally, several species tat beer bem identi fied as commer g on or edjeeent to the<br />
Reatead Reserva tion use cu rrently ea ger review as modulates fa ialualm to the list of<br />
thrmtmed v craw wed Ws ins. TTeee are to Nrtuglaus hawk, SemhaonY hawk,<br />
ling-b illed anew, Columbia milkweteh (Astorg plus eolumblmue), pents ist mind<br />
9,allows. (Rxiope celvcire vu.' calambie ^e ),<br />
giant Co umbia River limpet (PUhmain<br />
attalm, and great Codmbla River spire<br />
3.2.4.3<br />
.11 Mi^tho 12 hus mhonthienu eU<br />
candidates, these species do at have any legal protw Um uMer n. RMe^ered Species<br />
Act. However, Ste cooperation and maintome of all Federal agencies to protect anal<br />
enhance populations of caMidate spec ies may proolum the need for their Nture Rating.<br />
We would encourage DOE to take sly stias needed to hems Nat these â'Sias are<br />
protected from any a&arm impacts resul ting f ro m the're,mew action. If yon have espy<br />
questions regardhg responsibi lities wrier the Eaangeree Sp ec i es Act, please comet[<br />
Cdtural Resources<br />
Jim Micaeb<br />
2625 Parknidnt Lane, Bldg. B4<br />
Olympia, Washington 98502<br />
FTS 434-9444 or Commercial (206)152-9444<br />
The fia l . statem en t should captain sufficient Information to determine whether<br />
construction of no proposed facilitiess w illimpact com pel I ... brolgicai hlstoriceD a 3.2.5.1<br />
resources- 115 archml ogic sties rea aid On be loca ted a or near the <strong>Hanford</strong> <strong>Site</strong>, hot<br />
Neer is a i ndica tion that %be locations of imp osed construetme have bem ar se, ed f ar<br />
cultural remre oes. Nor is there an inexpert. of the mope of the su rvey perfor med by<br />
Rice (1968., b) iden tifi ed in the bibf,mphy.<br />
We re ammo ld tat no Ra1 Melemmt clarify theca items end document the opinion of<br />
Me<br />
State Historic Preservaer<br />
tion Officer rep.oh, .harbor . survey of th<br />
no proj ect area<br />
needed in scaed with Ste. requirements of 36 CFA 800, -P romotion of Hutorle and<br />
(2dlurel Resourees.^<br />
Fug and WDdlife Resou rces<br />
Regions ve miâtery wa stes have been gmereteM at Ste Hanf ord Reseevationover the<br />
pen 40 years. Past d isposal techniques oft en corseted of placing waste materiel Into<br />
pits or cribs and covering th em with minimal quantiti es of m â. Although areas<br />
eonta0pW inane wester may be iml.tedf ro m expaum to .mew, this disposal method<br />
has offered li ttle p ro tec ti on to the food chat. of both aquatic std wildlife ..am.. in<br />
Is<br />
3.2.5.1<br />
Me a re a. We flee concerned t ha t implementa tion of any of the proposed disposal 3.2.4.2<br />
alternatives, ialudinir t he No Action Altemetwo, could result In monamhg alverse<br />
effects W aguat5c am wUdlife man goes uMer the stewardship of the Pun and Wild li fe<br />
Service. Resou rces involved hulude mmtlromous fish (chinook, con e, and soak,. welmam<br />
gran ted bout, and nurgeo), waterfowl a nd other m igratory hinds, and federally lined<br />
threatened Or endangered spmies.<br />
Inf or mation about lmkoge of radionuc lides f ro m the <strong>Hanford</strong> Reaerv.nm and its<br />
movement in melimeots f ro m <strong>Hanford</strong> to the e Columbia River st euary wasoc documented in<br />
3.5.4.6
•<br />
t<br />
V<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
005<br />
Mr. Rich 11MIUm/<strong>EIS</strong> ^gyp 2 d M 4<br />
WIDIVISION<br />
1893 by the USOS (Dcoumgt No. 433-N, Radionuelldes in Tramport k the CeWmbla<br />
Riven from Pasco to Vancouver, Washington, 1993, by W. L Haushad, H. H. Steven, dr.,<br />
J. L Nelson, orb G. R. Dempster, dr.). The @eft abatement Indicates the presence of<br />
^hot apbk" or "severe concentra tion^ of redi ... aRO. in sediments of the rives. Th..<br />
ringlet under the legal responsibility of lire Bervbe. We are concerned that V<br />
alternative selected could result k further leeks[, of radionuclides into the<br />
3.2.4.2 River ecosystem. Other federally protected fish and wfdI a resources aW<br />
under our jurisdiction on or adjacent W the Columbia River may be adversely e<br />
the continuing Isolate of contaminants from the <strong>Hanford</strong> Reservation Thee<br />
facilities include Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Sch ge (NWR) (a<br />
Umatilla RIVE, Ridgeneld NWR, Columbian White-ba iled Deer NWR (eabifshnd g<br />
pursuant W the Endangered Spgics Act), and Lewis and Core NWR. In addition, several<br />
State of Weebmgmn Habitat Management Areas and the Honnevills Fish Hatchery<br />
(funded by the Corps of Engineers and operated by Oregon Department of Pkh and<br />
Wildlife) may be adversely impacted. The matt otatemgt does cot adequatelydissection<br />
the direct or indirect impacts of the proposed disposal project on fish and wildlife<br />
source on me project site or in arses adjacent W Or dow.eeam from Me project.<br />
The final Movement should Identify me... to mitigate fish end wildlife loss. in deeB<br />
in the Duststatemgt.<br />
The Esecufve Summary gates that the "environmental impgk (both short-and long-<br />
2 rt term) calculated for the four alternatives are generally low." However, that (mornin g.<br />
a 4 . 2 I rot .,ported k the @aft galemrnt. The dkcundmt of environmental impeCW<br />
(Sealm. 5) doms not addma any Of the above Co.... The draft statement does net<br />
meted. the tough, Of any Impact gudi.. no duty diseugion of project breech, On<br />
aquatic and wBdbfe mandrces is limited top statement that the addition[ impact Is<br />
"Judged W be small" on page 5.12.<br />
p rl q Based on the information presented In the haft statement, we a<br />
4 re enable W determftie<br />
2<br />
.a .m. within and adjacent to the proposed dfsposolsle.<br />
3 . . . 2 what impacts, H any, the proposed project may bave ban the im portant fish ape wildUf.<br />
//ll rrss In order W accurately assess the environmental Impacts of the proposed action, we<br />
recommend<br />
3,2,4,C.lonw, end mitigame, for fisdetailed prie4t andildlifeet. feels appro and the gacoement.<br />
Information reported in the Department of Energys Atmue, Reports on Environmental<br />
Monitoring at Raiford should be used In the firm statement W identify resources that<br />
could be affected by tee proposed action. This tonuouttlon should also be considered m<br />
the analyses of the consequences from each alternative W ensure that the selected<br />
alternative would retluce potential adverse effects he rarou roe on the reservation and on<br />
downstream aquatic and wildlife babitat<br />
Micaral R.m.<br />
Seelig R.3 rotes that mNNn,, into a waste-ammEm or dispel site from me surface Is at<br />
C likely concrete within IOU years V active inctitutionl control of the site is lost. Two<br />
3.2.1.6 distinct types of @Biter ecenertus are pustulated. Bcoauee h. different @REtg<br />
objectives end different else drill holder different volumes of waste and sell material are<br />
brought to the surface:<br />
005<br />
Mr. Bich Holbn/®S<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
3<br />
^^o y d 11Hb<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
1. Loge diameter (30 dm) mbreml exploration boraloles 300 m or more M depth;<br />
2. Welk &MW at comparatively de8ow depths (100 m or lose) far domegie water<br />
eWp Y•<br />
The Hest .e io mug presume the evsteace Of Interval resources or minerel haverm e<br />
Potential (either actual er lie ceiveid W Win W near In the site, because deep, large 3.2.1.6<br />
diameter bmeholva are rot randomly @Rlad winumn goologbel, ge ubmich il, .<br />
geophysicalevJoe.. W justify the operation However, mare k nd direct d'seuatch of<br />
Me potential for mistral resources m lire draft statement. Therefore, me fief<br />
skbment should describe the potential for discovery/recovery of mineral reeou ges In<br />
Me area.<br />
Spree Comments<br />
The following comments relate primarily W materiels provided In me appliances W the<br />
abatement.<br />
1. We questiah the validity of me eesumpffen that when the Wonder reach Me<br />
Columbia River they would be mixed and diluted instantaneously Jorge by the3.5.4.8<br />
volume of Bow in me river, The concept of bmtmetaneous mixhg and dBu{ienb by<br />
water in the Columbia River k mbleading. When lin icamelld. reach me Columbia<br />
River, It is tort unlikely met May could conwentrate k narrow new pstim inbed of<br />
mutter completely with She river water. Many nudhdes have the potential W he<br />
adsorbed on clay partial. contemned in the elver water . me bed. The major,<br />
Impact would consequently he ch the food chain along me eonWm[nted path<br />
rather than on drinel, water.,,U. dependent cm the river.<br />
2. Because Of mWtOOyeritg and the large differenceas k hydraulic c sedurgivili.,<br />
water possibly might move heriiontally Instead of just vertically as aumed orb<br />
3 e 5 • • 48<br />
simulated in the model. This might alt decrease me area in which diffac on<br />
eontrok me release of radionuclide migration in the unsaturated .nee.<br />
3. The assumption of vertical now in areass that surround me protective barriers may<br />
net be conservative. Even H the materiele ma homogenenn and imbropin, the<br />
dew-wand coo a men[ of wet. would ta pe to spread horlablly on outward. if the<br />
materi als we and agembople, the spreading could even he mere. 3.5.2.48<br />
This In effect would reduce the travel time from the waste to the water table .<br />
Me damove. that diffusion controls migration would be lea. Thus, amore<br />
nervstive approach would base been to eaume a trapasaidal shape fen advgtive<br />
now in me unsaturated wore.<br />
4. Do me results of the model simulations sally reflect th e per forch om W of a<br />
ultfayer barrier and de the simulation really provide rom e<br />
m3.5.<br />
argerance as the<br />
overall effectiveness of me trotter! Do the equation used In the smulatn<br />
1.60<br />
o<br />
eegretely portray how water will or wIR rat move through the barrio!
de<br />
a77<br />
3 'j 3 {fl 1. 0<br />
M 005<br />
DO<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
- Mr. Rich Halten/08 8 'Mr. Rim Ha11'sul IS 7<br />
r ^ p . LM<br />
M e'' 2 4<br />
2 _<br />
VJMDIVISION<br />
VIM DIVISION<br />
S. "a system diescribM is ectuaDy a 2-phase system, so lid, li md, aM vapor. Witt any<br />
of the em tami migrate through the vapor phase? Cesium In undWely bat what<br />
about Carbon an mnts<br />
We home these comments will be helpful to you in the ptepention of t he final stateme nt.<br />
3.5.2.47 d Strontium?<br />
Sircerolyd<br />
6. Tire a ant of he w t of Carbon Cazt b ed. to roe vapor Its<br />
movement to pater water table should .red. .t In be oth er warted assuming g<br />
ona<br />
. ṣu<br />
. orgy<br />
the acm of eontamm rnts in the liquid pas ph.. through Me umaturet ed may hot<br />
GGG<br />
be convervative.<br />
^<br />
7. Lava Howe and'voleen.m might be benfi ecial N net they may most. additiwut<br />
Bruce Blanchard, ard, Director<br />
ovr er ove the wa stes{ however, the po ssibility t ha t such even ts might nice ties e<br />
Rnvirtm<br />
entel P roject Review<br />
net<br />
water adds, bra.. of compa, tim'of the underlying mil , such et it comes in<br />
3.5.6.37 contact '" win the buried wastes sh ould be considered.<br />
3.5.3.16<br />
-/<br />
3.5.6. /<br />
8. Tae statem en t dhcu seas hydrau lic interconnec tion of Ne uppermost confined<br />
aquifer. not the unconfined aquifer ...in of the -200 Areas." Contou rs and<br />
_. mream6ncs of fi gure @.2 that endeavor a portion of the ground-water mnderftm<br />
WsAM the 1200 Areas* moves northwafd through the gap betwe en Gable Bu tte and<br />
Cable Mounteln The mmeet analysis s ho uld M dres the assible significa nc e of<br />
efforts on the uimarmo st emfined aquifer. V failu re of mtutel or engineered<br />
ben,/as should ocamr. The smlysis should i nclude effecta an g round-water<br />
movement'r^W tim, from riess in the water table accompanying postulat ed futu re<br />
inereas so in recberge during wetter periods ie.g., greater Loan 5.0 em/Year).<br />
9. The grouts+water model assume a t enfold increase in rabarge whereas Me<br />
aurfine-water m od el assumes a twofold Aeresss to annual p recipitation. The<br />
Impact(.) of molte (lean Doodi m, so . result of the P robable Maxima. Preolpl bstion<br />
f ollowing s aeries of wet yon should be evalu ated in Sm<br />
tlon 4.4.1. T7ds seal nds<br />
should consider cohmMmtimr impacts resulting f ro m flooding of-onvle ephemeral<br />
strem es and weeta pods.<br />
10. The US. Chops of Engtncem has evaluated the p ropnod constr uc tion of Ben<br />
Peanhtin Dam at river m il e 348,. ab ou t 18 km upsteam f ro m Richland, Washington.<br />
The higher water elevati on net would be c re ated by the dam could affat nuclear<br />
q fectiee W ed.,the bean of the Columbia River is the -190 Areas^ site The native<br />
would ho managed u Me, the. procedure+ selated for Trmearsnic and Tank West. -<br />
- tl.pr s A rebi h the of the Ban P it.f o P.. a[ by N o Corps could change the<br />
basisotn order n,the the Arm sr bite for rae waters would be evaluated,<br />
3Miuding the potential fm for nigher ground and acesh surface waters flat<br />
could resWt Prom<br />
ctit ofBen ou<br />
Franklin hepa Dam. This isbe s ld be addressed o in fire final<br />
statement ntem valuee of the in and y the 900<br />
site to L the Columbia River<br />
wild of ces.<br />
and<br />
a the high aa value is i. [.h end life nsoureac Stranded B[eloea0 trout W ran add<br />
aaBh t aan. N this Waco of the river. This mac h 1: e15o used by murgan eiq<br />
hold eagle.<br />
3.2.4.6"- We ha net<br />
at nine million cubic meter, of fill material would be hauled to Me "2110<br />
We st Area^ site and us ed fa backfrll and barrier cons truction. The borrow arer<br />
aMuld he reha .hated after the material is removed. Replacement of top mil ed<br />
revegetetron c ou ld be employed to nom Nis art to viable ha bitat.<br />
3 . 5.6 . 12 ^N Rector" Is 1. the "100 Awes" site and .p roduce, radioactive wastes net
$ 3<br />
006 007<br />
doe/ too 7<br />
`7 CITY OF Kennew ICK w IsHInsmn<br />
- i /<br />
a weceal<br />
m<br />
l eamseu ., , souaeeamu<br />
C 3 3<br />
as Y13 :,o wtsr erx.x.vaxue, x.o. ao:nu,xmecwme. wasxirygEN.'D<br />
DOE-RL<br />
RECEIVED DDE-RL<br />
JUN 191986 ^- ^• JUN 2 S 10<br />
June 16. 1986<br />
' WM<br />
ell DIVISION<br />
^ONIS<br />
P<br />
iD<br />
3.4.2<br />
R. A. Holten/<strong>EIS</strong><br />
Rich<br />
of Energy<br />
Richland<br />
Operations<br />
P.O. Box SSD<br />
Washington<br />
,f /, ® i ^:-^t C^,rd^af ^<br />
Tl'_'/<br />
Richland, 99352<br />
`^"<br />
`(^icy ^F ^^(, ^' CC c^y^[2 Tl^y(^.^' Zxz-<br />
RE: Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for The<br />
Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense High Level, Transuranic And Tank ^E` -^ Qg p ..^<br />
Wastes. (March, 1986)<br />
1<br />
Mr. Haltom; ^?^^ ^ .w"/c^,/^ ^/ ^^^ (I-GC-! ,G'CCL^:.c^Lc^Tv 5^Y<br />
G<br />
The Kennewick Fire Department offers the following comment Concerning<br />
The â .I.E.S: / ,Gl. TL c'"d<br />
The draft environment impact statement does not adequately address the<br />
impacts 'to municipal and state emergency services. Primarily the areas<br />
of training, planning and equipping need to be further discussed.<br />
Training is currently available in handling radiological emergencies,<br />
but needs to be evaluated to ensure that programs are adequate for the<br />
4<br />
^/f,^<br />
uE^<br />
^•<br />
j-'`^-^^-c-^=c.4 (CGe' e
,/- ,5 y {<br />
e.cG= (^ GzL lG zLo Lf -G. ^Zf,<br />
007 008<br />
rich-Bute./,,<br />
95 mot o£ mer(y<br />
.Richland. 0,oratians Office<br />
P.O. a x:550<br />
- ./heads `/tr C^-ue^e .cam C' 7. /r.^ce. h^ne^ran e915^<br />
rG„ 6" du d-<br />
SA4/g6<br />
waa<br />
RECEIVED DOE.RL<br />
' £^Q I as reciting to consent on the dreft EM ^ DisMeal of Defers, High_<br />
- ]foal Transuranic and T ook- :testes:<br />
Baf I ccest dire to the Els I went toaq that of the eltematrves<br />
asy a d the g ]teas tis . e if e st favorable for o Lettering reaso n: lif<br />
Z.-. app o£ the ad L t<br />
leered it will only be carte tine till<br />
Ean£Ot ea le t for all the rest] nucllean ar na P gardse of a? tM denials<br />
{ h at e em t not v tenons. u rf'a n m uh<br />
a n g to b a s me wo e the a the. 2.3.1.12<br />
it should be ofe, esough for all the nmleer waste ss hrn t]ent ar of goes. For that<br />
reason aloro the in-,lone stsbal ataen, aisse.. and refreae ros altereatives should be<br />
"1/ visaeIf<br />
in geologic d_s marl is a n, and .-.nest of the waste is tvclsd off than<br />
too aaaedn ng sure free whets that. t. i in s P into a it souM an be ^=amend of on;p in<br />
200 areas Ysr.awa, free tM Columbia. oo nsf Ste it retold all be eed off. 2 . 2 . y1 1<br />
xestop thmisv t 11 se the re£eaene alternative<br />
n rnakie is a alum becau cansee the DS en a<br />
about stes tbat m e " the 300th stable a would be bozo toes b e" then tell¢<br />
snout ntrean that. £m- he 300 redsc to the 200 area : 1 There Mea been<br />
nwxmos mierts<br />
In t the p ress of ]esiang tanks, This reddos in eta and ABC acre caele3 the Columbia a the 3.3.3.1<br />
most raditattl Mver In the world". This is stable?<br />
in the ES node, the in-place stabMs.t c: l+c=vativa It is stated<br />
O<br />
that ^ lit-.de or ro water in sssilebi to ilt,ete waste sites on! .—v the weste<br />
materials.. St stater the ]erni., oce,W - pmvsot umard or dcvm and novenset fenter<br />
by crooner, notion. e '.In a world of ct egivg veetber patter ns , mesiritt to attire<br />
Y..,,, vtleames and the Y necessitkv to have this xeste isolated for lvm o of -dcthousande of<br />
this just doesn't satisft me. in the M soutn est the re hove been resent floods<br />
3.5.1.57<br />
store nom. have been recorded q tore. 1 Just ca n't believe that thss reset. ran be<br />
nufficient]t isolated £roc water by tdn grneloovering method descAbod.<br />
I could gt on but will scar e. the- reader. Thess vsamns s* ad never have bean 2. 2 . 1<br />
built in the first place but since thaS have, we mss t Sind the best way snvi. rsent-J]t<br />
sound to dispose a it. Foliticel caaideentless nest teke a back sent to soviforesntal<br />
mideraticns. Storing thin v.-ste a ^.a hare. near the nation`s aeeond largest river is<br />
aearl incase. ( I think a certain remh mar Santo Barbara boloagi^g to one woo trely .3.3 3.3.1.1 11<br />
]ova mcI..aemva would be a better choice). cerkavl, a geolog i c a.sosel in an<br />
area xith ro major river in batter then H.of.t.<br />
am Holteh:<br />
'JUN 2 R eau;<br />
dace<br />
Cl/<br />
Siserolf. sours,<br />
;6 Proctor<br />
. 1, ? no-s<br />
Dwain, Or 97435
J A ^^ $„<br />
3§<br />
009<br />
010<br />
/6<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL A, 614 J rte' i nne err .?.-erp ah..<br />
JUL 31498 ar Z4/J ou.eu.<br />
WM DMSiON AT<br />
. at , A.<br />
RECEIVED DDERL<br />
JUL 8 10<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
N<br />
CUDD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND CEM'SFPM,<br />
NY NAME IS DOIOIES HOUSE. I'M A RESSDEST OF WALLA. VALIA, WASHINGTON, A HOUSE Vl Y,<br />
2.1.1 my NC FAMILY, MY CHILORE Sf<br />
R AND ATE my COUNTRY THE Sam. INAM AFRAID BECAUSE<br />
OF TIP MCLWNI ASTE.<br />
DEEP SITE AT IONEORD, WASHINGTON. WE DON'T W VAMP ITS<br />
THE WATERAIR AND LAND ARE BEING CORTAMINATID. WHAT WORLD NAME IF WE RUBBER<br />
3 .2.6.1 NAME TO'HAVE AM ACCIDENT SIMIL AR T6 CHPRNCBYLT JUST SEEM ARE WE TO Be EVACUATED<br />
7drM—D M HOW IANGT DON'T I= RESIDENTS OR TIP TRI-C ITY AREA AND EXHAISE'S OF<br />
HANFOND AND ALL PROFESS THAT ARE FOR THIS ISSUE WORRY ABOUT MAT<br />
UN1 WILDLIFE. OUR FISH AND OUR LAND IS RECORD RUINED. MR HEALTH IN GKMJJ, IS IN<br />
MRS. THIS US TO aI'VE TALKED TO HU AREAS OF PEOPLE THAT OPR'A46 THIS SITE AT<br />
2.3.2. 8<br />
MAY ORS. DO YM— OCR. FT THEY ASK W? QUOTE..: WHY HASU'T TMIS MESH An TO A VOTE'?<br />
I WONDER ADOIf THAT. MYSEIF. JUST WHAT DO WE NAYS TO DO TO BN HEARD?<br />
IMMEDIATELY<br />
2.5.6 W. NO HUG WASTE SHOULD BE AND H YOU EARN TMT ALREADY EXISTS. THERM S NOON<br />
TME TO WASTE. WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT WE KEMP NUCLEAR PWER, BUT WE RUST I IPARN HOW<br />
TO CONTAIN IT IN A SAFE AND BATS MARIAN MOVE WE MJODUCE ANY-NW OF IT.<br />
FOR THOSE THAT DISAGM WITH ME, THE ANSMEHIS SIKPIH! IF I DON'T LIKE IT. THNN M-<br />
UPS I SHOULD MOVE FROM THIS AREA.WHONGL I SAVE BEER A RESIDENT OF THIS STATE M OS T<br />
OF M YLIFE AND I SAVE IT ENDS. THE NORTHWEST S SOME OF THE MOST' VEAVINUL COUNTRY<br />
IN TIP UNITED STATES. I DON'T NAPPED TO MR THAT I SHOULD HAVE TO LEAVE. I THINK<br />
THAT TARS AREA' VIENE I LIVE SH OULD BE SAFE .... SO I CAN ENJOY A IUPPY. HEALTHO LIPS<br />
HERE Am ESPECIALLY .... OOE WITHOUT WORRY.<br />
3.3.5..2 THEM ARE QU ITE A FEW AREAS IN WISH STATES THAT ARE DENSELY POPULATED THAT BOOM<br />
HOUSE THIS WASTE WITHOUT MARK TO PEOPIS BE WILDLIFE. WHY CAN'T TWEE AREAS HE CORe<br />
SIDER®T<br />
STDWAIS IS LARGE AND NOT THAT FAO FROM HARPORD. CAN YOU IMAGINE LEAVING TO EVACWTS<br />
THAT CITY? WHAT OR THE FARMLANDS SURROUNDING HWEGTD AND FATENDIM EASY TO WAIJA<br />
WAIIAT WE ARM<br />
3.2.6.1 yg o. 1AOK ATTTHEIIARCE HWFIT'A^S^INCTHIS^AR EA I TOUR LD YW HAVE TO M.<br />
A RE FEW<br />
WAGUA<br />
NW TO FL CE[ ONE M TIE BIGGEST MERGERS... TIE PENITENTIARY AT WALLA WALLA..... B<br />
JUST THINK W THAT FUN A MINUTE. WHERE UE TIE SUPPORTERS AF TITS TERM PR OPOSE TO<br />
PUT THERE MOPES IN C AR E OF EVACUATION? I INDEED AT THE THOUGM.<br />
AS A MUSICIAN. I ENJOY SINGING SONGS THAT ExME3 IOVE AND HARPINEBS AND PRIGS FOR<br />
MY COUNTRY. I DON 'T WA NT TO BE SINGING SONGS WRITTEN OF FEAR AND MO VELESSNESS.<br />
I BPM FOR MMGS, MYPARTLY AND FRIENDS AND ALL TIE WINES TRAY' COULDN'T BE USES<br />
TODAY. I MEAN F OR TOM LOVE OF MY STATE AND THE IAVE OF MY C OU NTRY. I MWAK FOR<br />
THE FWME GENERATIONS THAT CAN'T SFUK.F OR TIENMELVES.<br />
Taw YON.<br />
.July 11<br />
ne<br />
1986<br />
DOE Richland Operations Office<br />
Attention. R. A. Holton / STE goats MANagemant. Division<br />
Richland. Washington 99352<br />
Dear Mr. Holten,<br />
The Reasons are a 2700 member outdoor oriented organization<br />
based in Portland. The club has bad a lung Standing interest<br />
in Northwest Environmental issues. We ...eider the disposal of<br />
defense waste at <strong>Hanford</strong> to he one of the most Crucial environmental<br />
decisions the Northwest has ever. faced.<br />
In deciding to postpone the ....Rd re pository because of doubtful<br />
need for the additional disposal specs, the DOE appears to<br />
Preclude the option of co-mingling defense waste with commercial 2. -1 .<br />
waste. There Simply isn't enough area in One repository for the<br />
3<br />
Commercial waste and the estimated D0.000 tone of defense waste<br />
at <strong>Hanford</strong>. We believe that the USDOE is acting in bad faith<br />
regarding the D<strong>EIS</strong> by effectively eliminating one of the options. 2.1. tf®<br />
f<br />
The M.Namse prefer an option that would include deep geologic<br />
disposal of the high level defense waste Currently stared in<br />
near-surface tanks. We believe that the cost estimates for this 3.3.1.1<br />
option are unrealistically high and tend is bias the D<strong>EIS</strong> away<br />
from this option.<br />
If the USDOE praalude. deep geologic disposal, the Mazamae believe<br />
another o ption Should be Considered, that of vitrifying 3.1.8.9<br />
the high - level waste before entombing it in near-surface tanks.<br />
We hope YOU will take these comment. Into consideration as you<br />
make your final decision. We believe they represent a large -<br />
Mha- he Red— NhftcM As. -AV&9,". M"-PaA.(SU)227-TARS<br />
ANUA.N.Y..weYE. w..rem ww YUw:a Mwr er ..w rt..®w.Y 4.dFeb w,wl W.mY<br />
YsalavwYYan..Y Vr4M pe.,Ye4m y .AelsuYAw®!®I Yb Ywe.wM1.. mF,.,Y.. W^l<br />
wwY^i e .Y^YYeiAYnY.hiw Fl YeyYY.Yenybww °YSIYYY..Yg Yitl. Yn..9rL<br />
DOLARMS H. RUDE<br />
M SOUTH, SECOND AVE.<br />
WAILA VALIA, WASHINGTON<br />
993U<br />
TEL. (509) 529-0185<br />
TNALy 1- (qrf<br />
_<br />
IV ED WEAL<br />
RECE<br />
JUL g M<br />
WMDMRM
010<br />
011<br />
croee enation of Northw..terriers.<br />
Thank you for this opportunity to express our views. -<br />
very truly Your-,<br />
F. Obarlasder. Chairman.<br />
WIZAMAS Conservation Committee<br />
JUL B 1988<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
2 July 1986<br />
Jeff Boscole<br />
3425 W.Lk.Sam.Rd.S.<br />
Bellevue, WA 98008<br />
(206) 746-85 7 3<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL B M<br />
IYM DIVISION<br />
Po<br />
R.A. Holten/<strong>EIS</strong>, Waste Management Division A/L<br />
DOE Richland Operations Office<br />
Richland, WA 99352 re -- Draft <strong>EIS</strong>. <strong>Hanford</strong> haste<br />
Dear R.A. Holten 8 Staff: -<br />
The three-volume and summary set of the Draft <strong>EIS</strong>- Dispo 1 f <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Defense H^h-j, I,.Tranuranic and Tank Faster, Aarcli M, prov 3es a<br />
anterestrng an Comp re ans av overvi ew or t e tecnol... factors associated<br />
with some considerations of radionucleotide storage at the <strong>Hanford</strong> site.<br />
We are unconvinced the many fears have been adequately allayed. These<br />
- include, but are not limited to, the •'pocketgophers," the "groundwater<br />
contamination," the possibility of river flooding from major catastrophes<br />
ranging from natural earthquake to rupture of the Grand Coulee Dam as<br />
well as risks from geologic activity and/or volcanic eruption. These 3.5.6.35<br />
and other h az ards strongly suggest that nuclear technology carries with<br />
it many potential risks which would render the utilization of atomic<br />
energy development unsuitable for consumption by those who subscribe to<br />
high standards of ethical responsibility to the environmental es our ce<br />
and to future generations of human beings. As a. consequence of this<br />
ill-advised romance with nuclear technologies and of the warnings from<br />
eminent scientists throughout several decades of investigation, we are<br />
suspicious that the patterns for selective breeding will epitomize those<br />
personality types who were motivated b y un controllable urges stemming<br />
from ruthless genetic endowments, with little perspicacity or sensitivity<br />
to cultural extenuations beyond mundane technocratic administrative<br />
functionality and bureaucratism aligned with conformist redundance. If 5 e 5<br />
the intent was to provide labor-saving leisure-time for an atomic economy,<br />
I will remind the hearing examiners that "idle-hands breed the devils -<br />
work." We are today witness to the devil's seduction of 'easy" money.<br />
The report details some statistical calculations of "health effects,"<br />
however, this phrase must be a misnomer. The word 'effect" means "to 4. 1 , 27<br />
bringabout; accomplish; fulfill; produce or make," yet in the passages<br />
which refer to "health effects" we are instead speaking of "ill. effects,"<br />
correct? Nothing inherent or intrinsic to the nuclear indust ry , from<br />
mining to processing to waste storage, suggests anything beneficial to
Oil<br />
RECEIVEu DOE-RL<br />
JUL 8 10<br />
012<br />
Dell<br />
(Draft HIS, <strong>Hanford</strong> Waste, jb) WM DIVISION<br />
W<br />
- the "health" of human beings; .rather we read of the clever financial<br />
scheming linked with engineering boondoggles exacerbated by the refusal<br />
Of highly competent scientists to be associated with the nuclear projects,<br />
if the DOE wishes to include references depicting the "ill. effects m -<br />
anticipated by this dubious marriage to nuclearist technologies, then<br />
the labels oughtto be altered to reflect the situation- Since we believe -<br />
that the DOE has been informed of this particular semantic problem many<br />
2e<br />
CJ 5 'times before in the past, the continued abuse of language is inexcusable<br />
and cannot be to leveled. Further persistence with misnomers only indicates<br />
to us the degree of untrustworthyness among the radiological sta£fp.0ple -<br />
which Will create only that scenario of contempt into which tomarrow's<br />
children will be cast. Will they find occupations that stimulate and<br />
envigorate healthy bodies as well as minds, hearts And souls?<br />
TESTIMONY of<br />
4.1<br />
.27 To qualify as a "health effect" according to Webster, the item most GOVERNOR BOOTH GARDNER<br />
"bring about or accomplish or produce . health" however,.. it LS obvious<br />
by the general linguistic constructions embodies by the Draft <strong>EIS</strong> that _<br />
STATE OF WASHINGTON<br />
these biochemistry engineers have overla ed "economic health" with<br />
physiological health," - i.e. bymixing. tOe;t er the production of waste<br />
far<br />
with the subjective feelings attending that moment of waste creation.<br />
It is natural for a political management prospe ct us to coagulate around<br />
USDOE PUBLIC HEARINGS<br />
that crust of conglomeration, abomination and apostasy.1n many respects,<br />
the characteristics of radionueleotide waste amortization remind us of the<br />
on<br />
5, C swashbuckling Nazi-movements of the mid-20th century, 'true believers' in ^<br />
2 L , d :J the burgeoning powers of the scientific methodology of human relationships. DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
As we point out in a repeatable ED ... WHILE ... UNTIL loops, the social<br />
factors of, Part Three (3) 'Was to Disposal" cannot be delimited from the<br />
by<br />
sociology of Parts One (1) "Mining" and Parts Two (2) 'Nuclear processing."<br />
The substitution of technocratic economies for Christian spirituality Will<br />
CURTIS ESCHELS<br />
again destroy this civilization psychologically as by the "enemy within,"<br />
as other civilizations had been destro6y' ur painful past experiences.<br />
SPECIAL ASSISTANT ON ENERGY ISSUES<br />
(See -- Herbert Marcuse One-Dimensional Man, 1961 ) Nothing in the<br />
usage of "health effect" Tn ' t ei<br />
iepart might explain the depth July e, [9e6<br />
of newspeak double-talk" epidemic to the progress of this disease.<br />
your choice -- heaven or hell.<br />
r,<br />
A.E. VanVoggt Destination Universe J<br />
Francis SChae rueri tua 'ity<br />
Paul Tilldch Sys tame as<br />
William A. RanSen R e tom oy<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
oax -<br />
Esther Veramae Ham e u y evised) Encyclopedia of Judging<br />
9<br />
And Exhib£t£h Floricu -2 t ..e 4 , .-A ist^- Classic 5th ed. JUL<br />
Alexander M. Hicke y The Morality at Consent -<br />
WMDMSION
sP3<br />
_<br />
1<br />
i<br />
_<br />
012 012<br />
H<br />
Governor Gardner rE,..Et.d that 1 express his regrets that he could<br />
not be hee r personally to c m an, on the Draft Environmental Impact<br />
Statement on the Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense High-Cevel. Tra -<br />
ranic and Tank Wastes. He .asked me to present his testimonySaMy .<br />
is. s Cur tie Eschels T an Governor Gard... . spec al ..tent<br />
erg, i 1 Chair the state of Washington Energy Facility<br />
<strong>Site</strong>nEvaluati oxi Council, and I am a member of the state of<br />
Washington Nuclear Waste Boartl.<br />
Before I make comments, specific I will take a few moments to list<br />
general criteria the U.S. mDepartment of Energ y (USDOE) should ua.<br />
to reach Pa. si gns. The number one criterion must . be the prote,<br />
n2. . lion Public. health antl the envir.x..ht. To meet this .11 innert<br />
L 3 tact criterion, USDOF must:<br />
3.3.5x4<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
2.2.3<br />
2 .5.6<br />
2.2.1<br />
- USE state of-the-art technologies:<br />
sumPly with appropriate<br />
laws by I....no the .has.. of the<br />
3954 Atomic Energy Het exclusions and moving into the<br />
nahi ne of cu rent fEd ... 1 legislation. v<br />
siosiger er but net allow c. to drive d.ci-<br />
.za future releases, and<br />
make su r cess. ' not politic , pre ail in the decision<br />
-<br />
making Pro<br />
The cle cup of this 40 years act... I.tion of. wastes i .a,."<br />
long-term challenge for USDOE antl the state gf Washington. This<br />
Draft <strong>EIS</strong> is the beginning of along, difficult, and expensive.<br />
task.<br />
p I am Pleased that the citizensof this region have become no knowl-<br />
2.3.2eg.8gamble about ehissue. edit the USDDE state<br />
W h gt n information programs for providing information to the<br />
citizens. I hope those information programs will continue even<br />
though the Draft <strong>EIS</strong> .comment period will soon end..<br />
The following specific comments are<br />
made in the spirit of improving<br />
this draftimpact statement. This three volume, 1,000 page in,<br />
act v for the most part, clearlywritten no technicall y .... tl.<br />
However, to make the final dums r t c 1 o d at" USDDE<br />
must incorporake the followings<br />
Chemical. Haz ortls<br />
The scope of the D<strong>EIS</strong>.is too narrow The document does not adequately<br />
deal with the hundreds of thousands of tons of chemical<br />
3.1.6. 1 wastes ncluded i in tans wastes and dispersed in <strong>Hanford</strong> soils. The<br />
naz anon of chemical contam i nation are no less. real and urgent then<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1989<br />
-1- WMDIVISION<br />
the bazar GS of radioactive materials. usoGE muse entory the<br />
chemical contamination and each of 5pos.1 alternative ..at<br />
specific s ally address chemical cantaminat i on.<br />
Soil —B—liern<br />
Th. Draft <strong>EIS</strong> appear. to make o .11yoptimistic P.,f....me c ...e -<br />
ents for soil barriers. TM1e validity of the EI S is in Ja .... orif s 3. 5 . 1.57<br />
the available literature has been Misrepresented. Barrier perfrmance<br />
must be substantiated by previous Studies and actual experi-<br />
Path.., and travel time calculations are mean ngless Until<br />
barrier performance is substantiated.<br />
i we<br />
We aconcerned that the HSDOE emphasis on stabilization of tanle<br />
onV to the Nuclear West. Policy Act "multiple Earner"<br />
approach which requires stabilization of both the container and the 241 2.4. . 1<br />
asks.. TM1e USDDE approach lead. to as a[knowl etlOPtl contaminat<br />
of <strong>Hanford</strong> groundwater. Cents' nation of groundwater is ty rar ion<br />
to Stain 1 In the final El UEDOE should nurse to omply con with<br />
A.<br />
.11 a p,ropnat. l te l ws to Protect public health and a a the en,<br />
.....a s With th N t' n l Environmental P liC<br />
Act<br />
In the final<br />
impact statement, USDDE must se pcifically identify the<br />
impacts of "the" proposal as required by the National nv omen Eintal 2.4.1.17<br />
Policy Act. Theo of "boundin g -a umptions" to crange of<br />
impacts or It nat es is not a ..plaits. Delay. orecords of<br />
dec will<br />
um, a supple ..tar <strong>EIS</strong> with an<br />
opportunity for citizen commentim<br />
Th. draft Par .... t calls for a system t0 mark the boundary of the<br />
actual died ... 1 sites. USDDE tlescribes what it calls 'actual di._<br />
posal sites whi cn would c r 32 square miles. In ouropinion,<br />
net all the 32 square miles must be off limits fora ys— only that<br />
land that is retrievably contaminated by tlangrous wastes should<br />
be written off. USDDE must establish a separate, public or ocesm to<br />
condemn land prior to writing it off.<br />
AbilityLo M-tIt or<br />
2 a 5 a 7<br />
USDDE must. in the final DIE, evaluate the impact of defense wastes<br />
on the ability Y o monitor a proposed repository. This m nitoring<br />
obvious is especially that important aconsideration in the of earlier a repository postclpsure requires years• the<br />
It i in<br />
2 aa 1 7/<br />
possible cleanup sof defense wastes.<br />
-y-<br />
RECEIVEv DCE-RL<br />
JUL 919W<br />
WMDIVISION
C 8<br />
4<br />
K<br />
y<br />
CJl<br />
3.3.2.1<br />
Efiec[ an O[her peci si_e<br />
2.2.3 Health and safety issue. eet be the ..... factor in the cleanup of<br />
lief ense wastes antl intlecrosigns leading to the selection of a site<br />
for geologic aisp osal of high -1 anal wastes. From all i cations,<br />
the tlecis.on to indefinitely postpone work on otl repository<br />
a b...d, 1a part, on GSGGE Cat, which assumed single-shell n wastes<br />
oultl not Bo to a repository. If the decision was influenced by<br />
such an assumption, there will surely be added pressure by I1500E to<br />
stabi Lzethe single-shell tank wastes in place. In addition, the<br />
use of such da'.a to make a decision on the Second r end repository<br />
s quesions t about the validity of the geologic rnposin-ysalternetive<br />
For ingle-sM1ell wastes. he spirit a o intent Cf<br />
ra<br />
th. National Environmental Policy Pct requires consideration of<br />
valid alternatives. The final <strong>EIS</strong> must clear up this contusion antl<br />
2.1 . uat clearly address the impact of single-shell wastes on the<br />
tlln es and c nstruction of a repository--wherever it Is built. TM1e<br />
final document must include specific information on the number of<br />
asters of classified waste 05DOE expects to extract from singleshe<br />
tanks.<br />
3.3.5.3 In ...clusinn. I support strongly U"OE's efforts to move ahead on<br />
key elements of the <strong>Hanford</strong> cleanup.This includes continuing<br />
arch and preliminary design work on the gl asaif icati on and<br />
groutfacilities. TM1e state of Washington will ..Ilk to forge a<br />
coalition to support cleanup funding.<br />
Cunt<br />
The Washington state Nuclear waste board will testify at the<br />
'settle meeting and the board will submit detailed comments an or<br />
before the August 9 deadline.<br />
Governor Gardner ant I thank. you for this opportunity to comment,<br />
-3-<br />
RECEIVED D06RL<br />
JUL 9 0<br />
WM DMS104<br />
Gordon J. Rogers<br />
1108 Road 36<br />
Pasco, Wasbmgton 99301<br />
Jury 8, 1986<br />
U.S. Department of Energy<br />
Richland Operations Office<br />
PO. Doe 550<br />
RECEIVED DO P '<br />
Richland, WA 99352 dUL 9 1986<br />
Attention: Mr Pilch Holten<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
Dear Mr. Holten:<br />
I submit the following comments for your consideration on the draft <strong>EIS</strong> an<br />
Disposal of Hamord Defense High ]eves, Trameuwnlc and Tank Wasters.<br />
1 approve of the USDOE'a effort to evaluate alteroatives in order to select a<br />
cost effective method for permanent disposal of these wastes in a manner<br />
which provides appropriate protection to the public and to plant employees<br />
in accordance With federal and state laws and 1e9W6tioas.<br />
I favor the boric approach of the Un-Place Stabilization LIPS) alternative for<br />
the following reasons:<br />
It is act at all clear that there will ever be a deep geological<br />
repository; or H there is, w what time frame it may become<br />
available. The UPS approach permits field work on Waste<br />
stabilization to proceed without waiting for resolution of the eomplea<br />
political problems of where to site the repository.<br />
•The IPS approach involves minimum physical disturbance of the<br />
waste materials. This reduces the problem of dispersal of<br />
radioactive material or contaminated soh, as well as the political and<br />
Public relations problems associated with transportation Of<br />
packaged wastes to Game other site for disposal.<br />
.This approach permits recovery or ready retrieval of radioactive<br />
cesium antl strontium capsules Which ere a valuable product fm<br />
medical sterilization or food irradiation applications.<br />
*The barrier and marker systems, will achieve greatly improved<br />
protection against accidesal disturbance of the West" for a long<br />
period into ma future. While there may be refinements, of the<br />
details of the carrier and marker during the detailed devise phase,<br />
the basic approach is sound and is far Superior to anything U am<br />
aware of having been planned fm hazardous Of tozk chemical<br />
ODI 3<br />
2.3.2.12<br />
3.3.2.1<br />
3.3.2.1<br />
2.5.8<br />
3.5,2.4
a<br />
tl-<br />
013 014<br />
u. s. Dspertmmtof EnerjSy.<br />
Rich Holten<br />
Page 2<br />
waste disposal sit". The non-nuclear chemical hazardous West" are<br />
G<br />
3.1. 6 . 1 presentncwinfugreateramoantsend arepotan tiany fumoreofa 5/03 771 0967 5240 S.B. Enepp,Street,<br />
besacd to human bealth and safety, than are the defen se wastes: and<br />
Portland.<br />
they w il l remain so indefinitely into the future.<br />
eTne c al culated health and safety impacts of the IPS aitemative us as _ Oregon. 97206 .<br />
3.3.2.1: low aS or lower than th es e of the other alternatives an d clearly meet Jn17 5th. loss<br />
the requirement s, of the applicable laws and regalation" with very<br />
, comforta ble margma for error or oversight In addition. they meet near Ur. Rotten,<br />
the AIARA objec tive. The heal th impacts are insist in oomperlsen<br />
Draft Environmentil Impact statement.<br />
With those due to nat u diy oocaft radia tion and also in ". .<br />
- .Comparison wi th the much highe r- claim to Wes an d health ulstug<br />
Meposal of penford Defense Hlgh-Level,.<br />
fromalmostaU othercommonhummactivitles."<br />
T"MUranic .nd Tank Wastes,<br />
2. 2. 4-The eafhman d oostis the lowestof the aliernatitea evaluated. T hi s is<br />
important became tapayer funds a re always in li mited supply, and n0s/<strong>EIS</strong> Oils Lash 1966<br />
there ere m an y ways in which funds could be spent to fu greater<br />
Co®onts on the draft . made as a member of the public<br />
advantage in protecting public health an d safety.<br />
r<br />
ON<br />
Thank you for the oppor tunity to presentmy views to you on this subject<br />
V trm9 yo<br />
.are enoloaefl herewith.<br />
You^^i0cetwlY,<br />
GMS11t^<br />
^<br />
a<br />
Gordon J. Rogers<br />
- Pr. Rich Holten/6I8.<br />
tt.5: Department of Imsa ,<br />
-<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 91988<br />
- V/M DIVISION-<br />
_<br />
ffichland Operation Office,<br />
P.O. Pox 550, -..<br />
pinbland,.<br />
Washington. 99352.<br />
RECEIVED DOEAL<br />
JUL 8 . SM<br />
WMDIVISION
gg<br />
MW<br />
r<br />
2.<br />
Comsenta on Lran Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.)<br />
Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense High-Levels Transuranic IS<br />
and TanU Wastes. DGG/<strong>EIS</strong>-<strong>0113</strong> 1936<br />
will there be any health affect to members of the public evident<br />
somatically or Statistically. Moreover * the DOE is committed<br />
The Draft E.I.S. is limited to o very detailed discussion<br />
to maintaining this criterion when it exercises Its discretion<br />
of the 440 000 CU, yds. of xTense Wastes accumulated on<br />
documented in Records of Decision.<br />
the site since 1943 and the projections for an additional<br />
F-r<br />
V<br />
2.2.11<br />
3.3.4.1<br />
W 000 an. yds. in the next 12 years. Written to meat the<br />
requirement. of the Councll on Environmental Quality the<br />
document says it "...will also help ensure that the public<br />
is Tully informed end Ss involved in the decision-making<br />
prone..: .<br />
At first sight it appear. that the decision is to choose one<br />
of three disposal options. for action or a o no-action" option.<br />
In no case ie a complete removal of ell defense wastes from<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> a pUasibilit7f In each case for action there must<br />
be a worker system for the retention of tank residuals.<br />
Whatever the outcomes the Department of Energy retains the<br />
discretion to decide what combination of options will be<br />
used * i.e.. Geologic Disposal or In-Place Stabilization and<br />
DSs poael. It Se difficult to eae in whet way this 1s<br />
distinguishable from the third' option oUtllnedsr l.ee*..<br />
Reform.. Combination LISposal. By virtue of the condition<br />
that all institutional central must: notionally be assumed<br />
to be lost by 2150. It I. anown that the "..action s option<br />
I. unacceptable and Ss only included b ... a. NEPA Bays it<br />
shoal^ Da^.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
The useful. port of the exercise is the examinatior. and JUL rt 8<br />
'<br />
1886<br />
Cumulative Impacts.<br />
Thic less. is only touched on Snfatmti.11y in the Stmmnry,<br />
while the fee paragraphs under <strong>Section</strong> 5.1.4 in.Vol.l.<br />
under this heading fall a long way short of what In relevant 2.3.1.14<br />
and ems entlal if the E.I.S. is to have any credence. The<br />
Defense Wastes are only part of the total inventory of<br />
radioactivity on the site. Them . are prwoe.e planter<br />
Operating reactors and Irradiated component. from elsewhere.<br />
How separate are they by location or nature and can It be<br />
shown that the interaction with Defense Wastes will not<br />
invalidate the analysis that has been presented?<br />
If it Ban be Inferred that by the year 2150 all operations<br />
not addressed in the E.I.S. will have ceased, then some<br />
underlying justification for the preeentatdon may be seen.<br />
The Columbia Gorge was formed some 10 000 ago, so to<br />
anyone sensitive to. that magnificent feature the projection<br />
of concern to that extant In the future I. well baleneed.<br />
This in no way however can Quench the Camara for the.present<br />
an9 next generation whe enjoy St. Further comments are<br />
mode as suggestion for public perception and public confidence.<br />
dommentstion of 'health and safety impacts for each op^I(IVISION<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
Here it in Shown that in no ease, short or long Ceram<br />
Page 2 of 4 JUL 8 686<br />
Page 1 of 4<br />
WM DIVISION
1<br />
8<br />
®14<br />
CO<br />
3.<br />
1 A Public Psroeotion.<br />
2.3.1.4 The time appears ripe fop public perception of risk to<br />
be identified as an important ingredient of the Impact<br />
Statement and discussed in depth ea objectively se any<br />
other issue. If the perception is ill-founded, It will<br />
through the denooratic process distort and mtsdireot action<br />
and in the extreme Sndueo apprehensions and 111-health<br />
which will be as real to the individual as If there were<br />
e materiel cause. There Se no guide in the statement to<br />
help appreciate the importance 1. co®onsema tezma of<br />
3.5.5.12 th. pr.Jected estimate. of the health affeots.quoted.<br />
Do page 17 of the Summary, dealing with Major Health and<br />
Safety. impacts shown on Table 3 9 it ie eaid °...they do<br />
show acme significant difference. among altwmti .....<br />
this -presumably with respect to the difference . between<br />
2 and 15 In M DCD years. On page 3.35 of the Draft, Table.<br />
3.2 quotes the acme range of figures ae projected for W years,<br />
but It also shows that these figures are limited to the<br />
workers on the site; it Ss ear. for the public. Row Ie<br />
this to be understood by the public?<br />
If a risk is evident to the senses or within the experience<br />
3.5.5.110f an average individual, then the figures should stand alone.<br />
'ihan it is not.. as in the ones of rndiologi.ul risk, should<br />
not the signific.... of the figures be discussed and<br />
explained on the basic of Appendix N ?<br />
4.<br />
Public ConIldene e.<br />
The Draft E.I.S. eddvoo... reponsib111ties matorlelly<br />
dependent on the actions of individualas not identified In<br />
the document, who must direct and oarry out operations over<br />
many future years. Ae anvlaegad by the public 1. the region<br />
policy directions are given by a bureau in Washington D.C.<br />
more influenced by its closeness to those concerned with<br />
short-tom political expediency than those remote but<br />
directly affected. Administrative control is effected<br />
through s multiheaded hierarchy on Bits and op.retiuns a" 2. 5 . 5<br />
delegated to contractors, faoeleea corpnvat ions deol.ted<br />
by distance and contractual conditions from any oOmerb for<br />
local tomwmitles.: If the E.I.S. Is to be can . more than<br />
a fotmallty of little practical consequence, 1tia suggested<br />
that the line of responsibility should be set out.<br />
It Ss further suggested that the senior local of ficial<br />
sbouldbe owned when appointed and charged with the task<br />
Of setting up a SSeison orl-ad.ltlal cad meeting with<br />
co®unities desectream at proscribed interval. to disclose<br />
and answer .uestions at Records of Decision when made.<br />
Discussion of concerns both rational and Srretlonal would<br />
build mutual confidence,<br />
Page 4 of 4<br />
Pas. 3 o 4RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 8 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
RECEIVED DOERL<br />
JUL 81986<br />
WM DIVISION
9<br />
015<br />
016<br />
U V/,9<br />
00 i t.<br />
R.R. Mot Hs,/EIB<br />
1LB. Department of Energy<br />
Richland Operati on . Offi ce<br />
PO. Boa 330<br />
Richland. WA 99332<br />
D ea r Mr. or Ms. Holtom<br />
7940 S.W. Carol ale" P14ce<br />
Smavert on, Oreg on 97007<br />
duly 4. l9%<br />
The following comments are offered in respon se to the request for<br />
public input on the alternatives for "disposal'- of nuclear wastes.<br />
/!<br />
3 .3. 4. 2 It noes not seem appropriate for us (the public or media) to talk<br />
rationally about 'a permanent solution" to this problem. It only<br />
eems prudent to dims ....... Isle ways of t ...... rily atom ing the<br />
Ieat: until such time that a method 1s developed to neutralize them In<br />
a ....ingful way!<br />
It fa bey on d my angle ... img intelligence to think of concentrating<br />
radioactive ..at.. and placing them beyond reach (i.. . ° burying them<br />
3.3.4. 2<br />
far below the earth's surface) when their dangerous properties are<br />
described as having half-lifetimse of 100.000 years duration.<br />
3 .3. 2 .1<br />
2 . 3. 2.12<br />
Man, in his usual "out of night, but of mind and no longer my<br />
reap ... ibillty" approach to getting rid of garbage, any be tampering<br />
with s...thin, that just e.n't be di.p...d - of in that way! We moat<br />
find • way to make the waste harmless before it I. put into a<br />
"permanent disposal site."<br />
continuing<br />
ah.uldtbe obvious by°most,I<br />
vote VERYSTRONBLV FOR „ OPTION NUMBER 2.<br />
Let's store the wastes as safely as possibleLn a location where they<br />
an be accessed when a PERMANENT SOLUTION is developed. (Va. know,<br />
even if that's 10.000 years from now, the material will still bees<br />
hangs... than as it is saw!) -<br />
I thank you for any real consideration given to my thoughts.<br />
Hopefully my. and other eaginavrinq/scientiflc. Input will be<br />
considered to a higher degree than that given to the engineering Input<br />
for the CHALLENGER'.fatal flight. Politic. and meeting anas.....<br />
established schedule ah.ld hot determine this decision-<br />
Thank you.<br />
Si ncerely,<br />
Milton it Mannfsr. Prof ... i.nal Engineer<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 10 IM<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
American Water weeks Associati on<br />
Win cola na - Deschutes subsection<br />
6780 Reservoir Rued,<br />
The Daites,. usages, 91058<br />
.July 8. 1986<br />
Rich Holten/<strong>EIS</strong><br />
U.s..ueJ>=rbrent of seam yRECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
Riabend :)peratims Offi ce<br />
Post Office Sox 550<br />
JUL 1 I IW<br />
Richland, Washington<br />
4az W. Holton'<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
As An ott mizatian vitally co camel with th e miintainence end protection<br />
of rav water sauces and the pvoductim of quality, potable drinking<br />
water the Mid-Columbis/Laachutes Suosectim of the Assrican Water works<br />
Association wtuM li ke to voice its wncem and opposition to the pla nn ed<br />
events at the <strong>Hanford</strong> Nuclear Reservation in Wastdngtre State.<br />
The thought that the Federal Government would cenv5d this facility<br />
as a repository for the nation's moleao waste causes usgceat alarm.<br />
Resent disclosures by Washington State soul Federal Officials have chaeh<br />
that <strong>Hanford</strong> bas long been using abusive waste disposal tecluiWes which<br />
base causal gross contadoetion of the grourclwater on the Reservatim.<br />
Tbeee "packets" of mntanuente. are yielding levels of urmI.. tritium,<br />
nitrates mad other lea level radimucleotides which are w acceptable.<br />
Officials at Rackaell Han£asd claim these "pockets" of Remy contamination<br />
are localized, but admit that the radioactivity will eventually make<br />
its Say lot. the Columbia River. The U.S. Geological Survey, Nnclear<br />
Regalatovy commission, a d the US-EPA all mport dust redimucleotides<br />
fmn <strong>Hanford</strong> could leak though the basalt layer under the Pese[vatim<br />
and mntawwto the Columbia River. Radiological CTenirals are the mfy<br />
chemicals regulated by the US-EPA in the National Interim Prime, Drinking<br />
water Regulations which have a direct carcinogenic effect on animals.<br />
These toxic agents a re accumulative aM the point of vies' that law levels<br />
of radimucicotidom is no Cook. for al arm is ridiculous and iitesp esible.<br />
observes effects at the present time do not detract I. the affects<br />
to which our r*;hdmn and their chiJuicen will be exposed. Maury communities<br />
along the Columbia River depend m underlying aquifers for the sauce<br />
of their.<br />
potable water. Contemostim of the Columbia River will ]fad<br />
to the destzuctim of these so<br />
The original Federal assessment an e min x. n tal impact for the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
site have nos' co re under :attack by tM Washington State Nuclear Waste<br />
Sunni, who state that the U.S. Depatbrent of fheryy failed to speak to<br />
maser of questions, incl ud ing grrnonwater carv e ant sold omtamrstim.<br />
The determination of risk assessment for eM five sites ibwght to be<br />
clear candidates for the final. repasitacy desigmtim, clearly stw^<br />
the <strong>Hanford</strong> Reservation as a purr fifth mice. This exaninatjm was<br />
carriol out as scientifically .based as possible in the attempt to rmov<br />
bias twnd the selecti on process. By t he panel's can aLnissim, Haford<br />
was last on the list yet we see it selected amoung to, top tho se candidates.<br />
caidates.<br />
Casualty of the selecti on process involved in Lou site selecti on has<br />
Clearly been mislaid in fawn of Political pmsmurrs by seBbVM states.<br />
2.1.1<br />
2.5.5<br />
3.5.3.11<br />
3.5.4.3<br />
2 .5.5
t 2 °=<br />
(,_<br />
01'7<br />
Ha[doad Nuclear Handswat£oa<br />
Page z<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL i 11986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
2.5.5 £)pope iffc a[NOr t tY aW a not al o tk„ fa ty h0 £mx m n t<br />
has enjoyed do the Pont N pvnitoring its en activities. The regain<br />
of this grn£toring ere clear, with the gross contea nmtion of griendwater<br />
on the Resdtvakion, exposure of workere to kcatanfnatal drinking<br />
water. arc[ pour waste disposal/rtenagarent pea ntices as a result. The<br />
future of the groundester aquifers, bordering and underlYiag the Cohmbin<br />
River dreiirages as well as the river itself, demands net action be, taken<br />
to prevent any further contakinatfon £ms taking place. The livability<br />
Of the region and the emixmment need to be protect i fmn th e thavat<br />
o£ radi anucleotides whose Calf-lives exrenal the Sffetige o£ irc[ividuals.<br />
Pe urge pro to elrolhate this threat anal prevent any further wntsdnation (1)<br />
of the regi on to protect what we [eve any Nut we will give as an in -<br />
heritan de to cur [hildten. Tha,k ypu for your auppert and assisted+<br />
fn. of the nest critical iseues you wi ll be faced with in tM futute.<br />
Sfnc 1Y<br />
Mcacan tinter kbrka Associati on<br />
Hid{ohubia/UesUVtes Subsection<br />
N<br />
C) _ for: John E. Houses, Fragment<br />
£Orion R. Stahl. CManien<br />
Public Health and<br />
_ ester n.° l ; ty Cnnnittee<br />
JEU/bre<br />
ornSeretor Rob Pacbmod<br />
Report. Hark Hatfield<br />
Govornor Vic Atfyeh<br />
C yeesren ROU Rain<br />
Senator Had Jetnstalt<br />
Repteamtative Wayne Faahueh<br />
(3)<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
To: Rich Holing, E.ls.,<br />
WM D IVISION<br />
H.S.. 1#p't of 1WgBy, Richland Operation office,<br />
P. 0. Box 550, Richland, WA, 99352<br />
Input, re <strong>Hanford</strong> as radioactive waste<br />
AL I 1 1966 July 9,1986<br />
Owl<br />
site, of Joseph I. Miller Jr. M.D.<br />
My main input x111 concern the prose^ butng used in selecCfe d this site.<br />
Fame three different angles, public information, and therefore opportunity<br />
for meaningful involvement in the planning yrocess, has been inadepuate.<br />
Until the public is fully informed, further consideration of <strong>Hanford</strong> should cease.<br />
kbile potential icpacts on eater quality have been at least superficially<br />
addressed, the public has not been informed of the direct connection between<br />
eater they ard was, depending on far. drinking, with no risk from leakage<br />
at <strong>Hanford</strong>. May have not Men told. that the deep wells. ftwo .which Portland<br />
water drinkers care drinking. last February, are at risk be cause of <strong>Hanford</strong>,<br />
both via the nearby Columbia River, and via uncharted deep aquifers. If 7OO.00o<br />
People who must drink. this water whenever Bull Run worst Mcomes too turbid,<br />
Russ, and sees told, that the safety of this water has a direct tie-in with<br />
radioactive waste disposal at <strong>Hanford</strong>, they would rise up against a <strong>Hanford</strong> choice.<br />
The people's power through Congressional veto. has Teen m zzled,through<br />
/^<br />
3 . 5 . 4<br />
'I '(<br />
2 ,y . y<br />
lack of public information (as described above) concerning has many Oregonians -<br />
have a life and death stake in whether <strong>Hanford</strong> is chosen. If the existing eater<br />
(or possible suggestion)<br />
source comectioneith <strong>Hanford</strong> were made known, it would Menge obvious<br />
that ware people in Oregon (302 of nor population in this state), have e<br />
stake in the <strong>Hanford</strong> selection process, than is the case in Hashin,ton state.<br />
/^<br />
3 . 5 .`4<br />
This increased knowledge could pressure congress into giving Ore... equal<br />
'I '(<br />
Rawer, co that of Washington, re veto any choice of <strong>Hanford</strong>. 2 e. 1 1<br />
.3<br />
.3<br />
(3)<br />
Before any action is taken there should be nose scientific discussion<br />
among all interested scientists of pertinent disciplines. I have not seen any<br />
evidence that this her<br />
of happened. The âapartment of Fnergy, which has a<br />
2.5.5<br />
conflict of intere st, aaems to heccorr^alling the exchange of scientific<br />
information.<br />
^ (<br />
aesceccfvssy apbmictea,^"g4-(- '<br />
M-^.<br />
nicer E. M H.H. (retires ,0c . , 9<br />
physician)<br />
pnysihian ) seals E. azmnr Rd., gay ,n ,or 2HSs
€ -<br />
UK<br />
0.1e<br />
001f<br />
tt •<br />
115 Locust Street<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
July 8, 1986<br />
July 10, 198E<br />
/1<br />
'N 3.3.4. 2<br />
I--•<br />
OREGON AND WASHINGTON CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS<br />
Mr. Rich Holton<br />
MME<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL HANFORD NEARING<br />
P.O. Box<br />
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION<br />
550<br />
JUL 1 h N66 JULY<br />
Richland, WA 99352 1 0 ,. 198E RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
Bear Mr. HOlten:<br />
1 am writing in lieu of appearing at the public hearing in Richland on July<br />
R ' -<br />
3 .3.1.1 1) 1 stro ngly oppose underground storage of waste at the <strong>Hanford</strong> site, or<br />
at any other underground site.<br />
C C<br />
2. 5. EJ 2) 1 believe that the N-Reactor, largely responsible for these wastes,<br />
should be shut down. No new waste should be allowed to accumulate<br />
until a Safe solution (one approved by the ODE and independent agencies)<br />
is found.<br />
2. 3.2. 5<br />
3) A new environmental impact statement is needed, one by an independent<br />
agency.<br />
4) The emphasis should be on waste retrieval, not longstorage.<br />
-term<br />
3 . 4.2 . 2 5) Waste should not be transported sera SS the country.<br />
2.5. 5<br />
6) The credibility of the WE is dubious, especially recently with the<br />
latest press releases regarding toxic releases f ro m the <strong>Hanford</strong>. It<br />
is more than a little uncomfortable to be living downwind.<br />
cc:GOV. Booth Gardner<br />
Senator Evans<br />
Senator Gorton<br />
Rep. Foley<br />
-<br />
VIM DIVISION JUL 1 4 10<br />
Dear Sir.,<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
Sincerely,<br />
j , G« ({..,<br />
Juanita Marie Wallin<br />
This letter is submitted 4. 11. of verbal te.ti..... on the<br />
issue of siting a nuclear waste depository at the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Bite.<br />
I would like to go. record as opposing. this plan.<br />
It appears cleat from sll information available that the<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> site is a poor choice for a nuclear repository..<br />
currently stored nuclear waste materials are already leaking<br />
into the squarer withinSD to 20 years Of storage. It Is 2. 1. 1<br />
inconceivable that this site could contain was tee for the<br />
thousands of y.are necessary for deterioration of<br />
radioactivity.<br />
If the federal government's argument on the use of the<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> site rests an the supposed imperviability of the<br />
conteimaent vessels, the recommendation should be rejected<br />
out of hand. To. not possible to ..sure that a container 3.3.5.4<br />
will last any appreciable I ... t4bf time;. the human race has<br />
no experience with projects of this length or magnitude..<br />
While my true feeling is thaVke should not be faced with the<br />
choice of placing this deadly mAt.ri.1 anywhere on this<br />
planet, I would at lest favor an option which would not<br />
result in the inevitable pollution and decimation of<br />
southern Washington, northern Oregon and the entire Columbia 2.1.1<br />
river valley. A "safer" site would be one which is not only<br />
geologically§ table (which <strong>Hanford</strong> is not) but also self<br />
contained, and not draining into major river systems or<br />
water table..<br />
Eh.od, you for the opportunity to make my opinion known on<br />
this ^object.<br />
Sir.<br />
b 70 n"1"<br />
4.<br />
D. Resale Bremer<br />
2222 BE Salmon<br />
Portland, OR 97224
,M<br />
020 020<br />
odz<br />
&ZO<br />
N<br />
ir: fi19 ftar«.v, Ui kfelgss (:G hl<br />
S'. c i^x ss o<br />
1A,CM ldmd f Ll:d Sti 47352<br />
1164A Sc bm•rl PHS bcr T)u • vP7 az- WdSTe Dls^sal Lkay,nr^<br />
'l+la.IK yoD<br />
( jiuA ^ IM.c.a`..q<br />
3.3.5.2 June ^j 16. 1986 al j O car- VBa m200d6 TI, l $•IC. IL 'S<br />
a lwecs. l C
0 4 2 6<br />
zL'<br />
021<br />
021<br />
6c<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
dUL 1 4 1986<br />
1VM DIVISION<br />
-/o A6<br />
^.. w`ow^ ^vs>.Sm.l cr ..cG<br />
^'^i ^^ h<br />
//^zexove /f>/-r/s+G .. r Cm / ..vti^a.Lco ar a .ae^<br />
w<br />
2.3.1.12<br />
2.5.5<br />
^iGwm^ 3o gun- 2rv/r>3oxl ox Y.fi Cm^^ it! ^v eCre..^<br />
/VaeZo c%>aos.^ !L .Ua.,.^ ^ / /3faa yeK GG ^waU<br />
9^ %.eo LuuZlc.,. >ueoawa,e- yu..f n.Zr..hm.^.<br />
iQs a.tr..-^a.'.+i a^/.^nflau O i G^ J^.wr. ./t3iw Gx^u.z:eCy<br />
oGe .,... a/ ^X.v .scC' {o^ ccxs^uuucff<br />
re.,.f-.<br />
-.e m'.y.. NeexeeL ¢/iawG / ^6 / 'ui-uY z m..<br />
^^ pd /3.a'. Laid Puvcrxf 2nlK J%E9GK s^'Y.tc.<br />
w..G{ u<br />
^ c<br />
^°<br />
h nJ was? 2.2.11<br />
do ,ao cCf-^a6Gc .Tad' Y13^a u.6 f^ iac Cam....<br />
br .sn/ G^ a...e/ Y-luso-u^lLy /^iacoir^%<br />
^.P.lb..-<br />
oa3^fi° iLE /9<br />
^^^^ Gam'<br />
9^a/2<br />
3o ape>son Os^^ >i»^c..Y M /.mad Ge ^i^ ^<br />
'7ws/,.w.- coos7: Ri. ^ i^^ Gi-d^y c^i /fin^ar^!<br />
,^,,,I fl , > Ln-n•- clun.G Loaa^a'd G^ Y1.e. ^ '"+d 3^<br />
T^O^^'. 3o aoce^^L i..'.. ^fca.u.^, o^ y^ ^ra^.<br />
gvGsua.!'a.+/^ z^T' w1w 1^.^ Zvh Luo^ C^Gpw
022 RM<br />
Oregon Rainbow Coalition<br />
P.O. Box 6797, Portland, Oregon 97228.6797<br />
To: United State. llepavtmant of Energy<br />
prom: Cregen Hainbov Sosliti..<br />
Subnitted Ey: Susan Giese<br />
RECEVED DOE-RL<br />
dUL 141986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
July 10, 1996<br />
RECEIVED COE-R'<br />
Oregon Rainbow Coalition JUL 14 06<br />
P.O. Box 6797, Por tlan d, Oregon 97228-6797<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
oe^<br />
N<br />
Consents no the Draft Em rirokmental Dnpact Statement - <strong>Hanford</strong> Ilnfenee Wastes<br />
Whereas:<br />
- the present ;storage tasks at <strong>Hanford</strong> are inadequate, given their history of<br />
lea4aga..<br />
- the HS WE does not p resently have an adequate monitoring systm to detest<br />
task l.eekege.<br />
- redloeative to lsekaga present health haserde to the population of the<br />
insediate area, and to surrounding populations due to sespxge of ncutaml natsd<br />
donned water Into the Columbia direr.<br />
- the Draft. SlS - Sanford Defense Waste offers four options, with no clearly<br />
stated prefe rence.<br />
Therefore:<br />
t - Me DS DOE should hosediately implement an ongoing inde pendent audit of their<br />
2 2 a 13 waste mevegement activities at Hv ford.<br />
3.3.4.2 pre sent defense waste should be transferred to a'Monitored Hotrievabla Storage<br />
facility while a permanent solution (peenibly reaulting 'POs the c ombination of<br />
the present Draft SIS an d eitiones- ...at.) is tho raughly resaerohed.<br />
Whereas:<br />
- the HS WE chose Hartford an one of three poseible sites for a permanent crsas=ial<br />
Monitor,, regesdleae of it's Saes place reeking of five apes.<br />
- the E .ident has detemdned that civilian spent fuel can be co-mingding with high<br />
level floc. waote.I.. repository storage.<br />
- site ssI.ti. far the ..e..d repository site fins been postponed.<br />
- 2/3 of the fadmoxft Vvmvinent • s high level anelear waste inventory is sto red An<br />
leaky tasks at <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
Therefore:<br />
fle<br />
Sanford<br />
vhichinaludae S bothrthe siEnfofthe reposi pry andathe storage<br />
mole. at. at Sanford.<br />
'.rhereaos<br />
- the SS DOE is a devernemrt agency Which I. ultimately accountable to citise en .<br />
- decision. concerning the d,xfoael or —1— to Se of the utmos ț importanoe<br />
for the health of the pre sent popaietion an d for that of raters generatio ns .<br />
Therefore:<br />
-. the 0 WE sh ak<br />
an politioal consideration..<br />
2.3..3 l<br />
ould me th ese decisions hosed on. sound, aeiantitic kmvledge, not<br />
2 e'2 e 1<br />
- the DH MR. hou1d demonst rate leadership on these loans. by bringing together<br />
the beet of ideas and kvowdedgs.<br />
3.3.5.4<br />
- t he deafsihn making pre p... moat. include eitiess, input son, the US WE ...t<br />
p<br />
fellow your, ore guidelines concerning notification of citisen groups particularly notification of affected Native inariaeh tribes.<br />
2 e 3 e 2 • 8
0<br />
N<br />
U1<br />
023<br />
0"2<br />
Letter in lien of assebamf f oe s Sohn Ustasls a U.S. Departmnt of hhemy July 10, 198.<br />
on the subject of storage of radimaive worts at the •""_ford Rsaa vatian<br />
neat Richland, Washington.<br />
RECEIVED DDE-RL<br />
JUL 1 4 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
`, ran is Sohn Bartels, I as a retired joumalist eN a forcer make s, of<br />
the. Elyen Weir 6 Metric Board, the e a ieipel electric sal water utility in<br />
Eugene, 0re9on.<br />
In. 1970 I stonbW cote the a snaing stay of the tedioaetivs onamt:ation<br />
N of the CoLUMUa :fiver in il, 1950' 3 acid 1960's while I vas dolnkf teaeazch prior'<br />
kF to t" ^h laser Bhgulatory COmstssbm hearings in St. Helens, (1 e9er an siting<br />
+x on the TOOjen stack ' . Plant.<br />
t_<br />
v<br />
'O At tat tin, I dismverad tint the DDB achally measured the sonnet of<br />
i-r<br />
N<br />
mdiactive metals in to bodies of specific v -Lies of this emtaminatim in<br />
their oamonii hos m to masts of Dre9on amt Washington scats and al on g to<br />
CO1.rnbia River. T't?9e victLre included asfoad wrkea in Willapa Day, wash,<br />
0 ingtn amt 1ticWway, Oce_on and their children -oho ate mnam anneal she llfish<br />
U<br />
0 smi o this vsy xmaivef what is appropriately called in mietiflc jams "a<br />
body harden of ^oeati%ro rtetels" including esime strmtius and zinc<br />
For 25 ye arn I have staml tat tl, +Odieal histories of these isforhurmtas<br />
would provide mn 1=b a pogo£ Of to dangers of this nuclear mulstta ud.t'r th e<br />
uaaa of the alarms River that you are still blit hely continuing. I eve raisai<br />
this commation of every available aomrtunity: sitinq of to TeOjm nuke Plant,<br />
.Seating revia.2 sad hetringe an Trojan, see a press aide to U.S. F paamatb O<br />
St v:aawr, my electlen m are of th e six entih. ear electric utility acmḋ -<br />
siomes in the U.S. in 1978, se a a, her of to Sales and Imislatim Nmdttm<br />
OF tho Nearian pulhic Bnnr Amatiattes, in Ue aft ma th Of the Thee "Atha I,<br />
land nuke aaid ant, and now in to a Ḟ Oaath of nuke ac ident in to U.S.S.R.<br />
Usetals.lettee P.2.<br />
.023<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL °`z<br />
^^<br />
During this time I think I mat have experienc ed just about every Ity 01<br />
JUL<br />
1 d 11986<br />
inertia, baa,-pmsing, cplbrbmisn, nest-feathesi , irmslcesiblity arch detait<br />
kman to mound.<br />
Usually the people corking for the Private seater ant a etars keep their<br />
jobs hal their n ouths shut Ie3mdazy pti. stoned here are John Zeigler,<br />
w blew the whistle on inadequate- design work by BmItteal (brpomtim m the<br />
T 3= plant The Y1 1l leguUMry Camdse sent his letter to Bechtel<br />
na-tion his his job arcs mve,.-i ng UP to Bechtel screw ups Un til they were raised<br />
before £o3esal holies again in 1970 am cousin, Trojan to be shut den for ten<br />
nnta in 1970.<br />
0<br />
Stew_ Stshlo9 blew Ca whistle what Paaks Ll diametinued me ammtal on- O<br />
itethrg Of hanford karts in 1979 arch rtanged to may in corporate huxeau¢atic a N<br />
li'am l on g smagh to passes UxOeiell into rammdn4 necessary testing again. 7<br />
Bafcra Bteve raovx3 on to = he zee for mnyass against "Atonic Mike" 3ks1brem k,<br />
longt-e merge assn Eton Hereford and cartel Aterdc Mike's slide into oblivion.<br />
Qk the other en3 of the sale w have Unman cm ammo Ujs A§aver cola<br />
[aims hall s la nt'daaysr mtleale imah, is at wh en he is asedn, for reelection "t1<br />
eel huskers do"n after. (D<br />
leas this I Seams? that that ag=.reim of corporations end politician,<br />
d<br />
poefite, konvenionce and threats, weld net help them local rsdic islet victiss.<br />
Tber we have to mtinwolear amt moron tuasmOecim. She antinmlear<br />
Waauarmies ors dmeendent m £ollanna t he trends being picked U, by the journelists<br />
:Ax) if they =='pin mployed, are sitar seld- or ignorant or worse.<br />
As a result Case 'emetemd tmel bureaemies" haven't trnatsl the crussd¢<br />
news hurry to hel, these v as in Unman sod •;Ashingthn and to slat seal light<br />
m •drrt yon peopl e . as doing to us ant`: your pee renh at Useford.<br />
-2-<br />
0<br />
O<br />
x-h<br />
M<br />
(D<br />
7
p,3.<br />
023 024<br />
REGI:IVED DOE =RL July+ In<br />
\<br />
I'l:tir,<br />
°f z • JUL 1 n 1986 X1--11 (( IXAU^<br />
Bixtels latter<br />
}b<br />
WMD IVISION -^Y'044<br />
N<br />
ch<br />
Went .eels m m done is (1) force discln.•'ae of tta iuninrd ..Dine ley<br />
O ocm eranlOatirms of ten ssafeod xarlw_ra and ilmtr children (2) identifieatien<br />
2. 3. 2. 8 end notification of these P 1. (3) ux lioal eXmld.. tons for canwcs and f4wlly<br />
surly ad c lusims .rout this i limtary in hens. exposurn m<br />
high leusl radiasct ueste..<br />
Nd so hanrable Un'eacrats as gentleren I na. -ay mic<br />
2. 5 . ..5 afmr 15 yens<br />
Dena m rest en y ,mWilli ^ sroulders.<br />
of evasimr, secrecy a.a deceit that this .s .ibaity tens fi.auy<br />
a, I ) you will say tlmt this is a l lit; latter and yw ca. only<br />
Lo W.ux tta .politician. in tM lles'y, #âNnistm.:^ direct you m do. gut I<br />
vq lore you m 1c inm yo.¢ wale if tla Ptxswre hae + got alresd'l ^sl it<br />
inm a piece of glass and m not eeIIam Albert blmer wro clairred to be only a<br />
txtaocrat W a abstt q ten =r s Of his Political mas . but in' r so-<br />
"tam the estias Or. 3o}m GoiSan, wen . ^°'°' one ea these radi"actiiwt,ss<br />
while a q, usbs Sm mt and ,sys dr"med Wt o£ the scientific and<br />
def nsc estahl..t f being a. msp:msible-hural t q ad miainc questions<br />
atrn^x tM_ ef_fsc o9 tmren tei.ys of this Pattrnra's tax m mlpel m open.<br />
J V' r tV Jkku nu^^ Op nterU l 'u onded_ r Wv ^Ma m<br />
Ju a c^ ,)posQ AAtn ^2 ru(eleaA 1,4(di<br />
° wj c&n ,^' Lo a ntra wc-Wc ALa-> Cc1 1nlnlnat^a U<br />
rru ^WOMb 9-KtIk,0A 0 unz -&qp 2.1.9<br />
1^ Wye .paa^G^^ -Laactil,ar^^ 1 a^o^Ar ^2r^elc, U,^„l^(r<br />
Wy e) ^t^ a^{e .<br />
j do R'o ^ all a)wul ..t, to t4vd In rk.o u I FF<br />
A/A u3 lina^ WO' Dt3 W\a.Y i"ucr a ^';,-ulian.cn# 1,e>J'ITn<br />
Mu<br />
onoV ^ afnDD * A F^^c cLol.^ ^^io^(v r.^ emu _<br />
Fpi _a^ uzR I n W â Y 4 1 Fit o,LQ ^^aC r y -ilt D do<br />
T`lwR (in-^ 1' \dLP ^l lob(D rl( Lf u^dG In ctrl<br />
wWl 1wu_ na^lao^t_P,,,y a^, tirJ,, I^^ eiJ h^ A,e 2.5.6<br />
In -}p .6h) (I l,"c lA nr/ '^iIN i1 i In ^4lo I 1 tQt t1.1C3 0P<br />
'S.!m Panels<br />
ib 11n 10744<br />
4ttla.cF OR 97210<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RI<br />
JUL 14 1966<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
\-P FLLUA;R WR to+ j RO_r..” '{T: 3" r i\ Y ml.l-<br />
\11 p<br />
;NL(.n, -UJI11\F+et_I -( fir , ^ 4(4 1-1<br />
U C<br />
.QV ^i^Ck1^..,.1,17^ enn-^ ri, I Jii.l^ ,ll 4h- I^^II(,lT h(_ .
024 025<br />
RE CEIVED DDE<br />
-1l,,A C,^.1 w^ k'At â 1,o ll.^...^(l A+) u'a ti.U.l^^ Ip 6'n fiClLt cov 'RL<br />
Ohos<br />
2.5.6<br />
i^u.^t i C^il iklCAl1aR(^. W^LQ,tIQ{ lli,2 V^1L. °<br />
J V<br />
N-^C^.lc:.l k Nc'^J^G ^^a an[ t'^x.t.t^tC. 't'i^Y. 1A. `'I ;t - =e .<br />
air _lattjti t{-L,ckJ.aJ 61 li t,,x<br />
,ae,'<br />
IY',<br />
d<br />
.:r1 ty, , '^ o_ju i tL)"^j l OvC11(ck L cx4 Ed, To WHO- IT<br />
(l ucolwsmm<br />
MAY Cevicersii<br />
h I vcv in Jko i<br />
' -<br />
at0 c4 [04 ^(^p Y-Is a wR Y-w<br />
Yduewh(euopgeyon<br />
amaddCnmmiebov.<br />
Diui.lLm<br />
ck'J 0.c 310.3A.n,q rv,, u nay UCAC-Q<br />
`J O<br />
rowna.o^ s):a<br />
y^^1 }<br />
(M))1,8d31)<br />
WMDIVISIOry<br />
U<br />
The Multnomah Connto ?oard of Commissioners,<br />
.^ :A:,itnomah County, Oregon, Nish to .submit the 'e.<br />
enclosed Rna0lntiu11 naiGaA hV the.. Board relating to<br />
Hanfnr.'. they and related huclear "f.ate Issues, and have<br />
re a into the record of the Proceedings heard in<br />
vo rt]aa , Ore gon nn this dale.<br />
N<br />
v ^,t^,(( LL^t.tMN Yyt(L/ submitted this 1O[h da y of ./niv, 19 86.<br />
Bncl nsnre
025 025<br />
^lrm'e
"a 3<br />
q 3 ,<br />
a<br />
^F sy<br />
025 025<br />
pers<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
N<br />
t0<br />
RECEIVED DOE. !L<br />
JUL 141%6<br />
.cf to w.d. 1t.k....ogre. of .omprah... ivm national o .niW,¢'BF^1S6?41oon<br />
eologlc media for selection of the first nuclear waste r rrlository I -etiltc ing<br />
^001091C considerations as primary criteria for identification, lnv=:e cleat ion<br />
and selection of potential aicss,<br />
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the notice of this Resolution be made known to<br />
the Secretary of the U.S.Oa p art.ent of Energy, the Bona. In ... I., Committee or<br />
the U.S. Con g ress, the Congressional del.,dtion of the .Pacific earth... c, ocher<br />
Oregon and Washington Jurisdictions potentially affected by the proposed<br />
re positor y , end entered let. the official public nearin g, record of the<br />
U.S.Depart ... t of Energy.<br />
DATED thin day of March, 1085<br />
Pen l..n n<br />
Commlaeloner ern<br />
Gretchen efOu ry<br />
Co.mi.si ... r<br />
by<br />
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS<br />
FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. OREGON<br />
fall B umena<br />
Presidin g OfflCer<br />
Car013ne MS ler<br />
Commlealnner<br />
Gordon .hbdburne<br />
Commissioner<br />
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JUL 1 4 1986<br />
FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
In th e matter of Requesting a Delay in )<br />
the start up of thhePlutoniumUranium Extraction )<br />
Factory. in Washington, in Order el Opportunity<br />
1 R E S O L U T I O R<br />
Provide<br />
an Opportu of ty for an Environmental )<br />
Impact stud y . 7<br />
WHEREAS, the Federal Government Is working to renovate a Plutonium-Uranium<br />
Extraction .(PURER) factory for nuclear weapons at the <strong>Hanford</strong> Nuclear<br />
Reservation in the Tri-Cities area or Eastern Washington scheduled to<br />
start up in October of 1983, antl<br />
WHEREAS, the,. as a histor y of I.di... Live was to leaks as well as routine<br />
release of radioactive wastes In gaseous and liquid form at the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Nuclear Reservation which is a short distance from the Columbia River, and<br />
WHEREAS, the Board OF County Commissioners for Multnomah County as a local<br />
health authority, has a great concern over the impact on public health of<br />
Radiation Plutonium an the food chain of the Northwest and the risks<br />
involved in Increased transportation of high level plutonium on Oregon<br />
highways, and<br />
WHEREAS, it Is the perception of the Board of County Commissioners for<br />
Multnomah County, Oregon that the development of a new generation of<br />
Nuclear Weapons by the Federal Government violates the spirit of Ballot<br />
Measure Five, through which the voters of the State of Oregon called for a<br />
Traces in the development of nuclear arms.<br />
NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of County Commissioners for<br />
'Multnomah County re,.a.ts of the Federal Department of Energy and the<br />
Congress i...I Delegation far the State of Oregon that the y seek to delay<br />
the proposed start up of the PUREX plant in <strong>Hanford</strong> pending an<br />
environmental' impact stud y by the Oregon Department of Revi ronmectal .<br />
auality, the Oregon Health Department and the Oregon Department of<br />
Transportation regarding the potential health impact of the operation of<br />
the PURER plant an <strong>Hanford</strong>, and<br />
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of County Commissioners rag... is of<br />
the State of Oregon that at undertake the aforementioned studies.<br />
DATED tBIs 4th day of August , 1983<br />
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS<br />
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON.<br />
25 • 6<br />
6EEAL)<br />
G''<br />
BY<br />
`s^c..ily'^—<br />
led .,.<br />
( Pres3ping B facer<br />
i
4<br />
026<br />
026<br />
00Z<br />
W<br />
O<br />
3.2.4.1<br />
Statement of commissioner. Jane Van Dyke RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
Clark Public Utility District<br />
Vancouver, Washington JUL 14 1986<br />
before the<br />
U.S. Department of Energy hearing on WM DIVISION<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> military waste disposal options<br />
July 10, 1986<br />
My ... is Jane Van Dyke. I am .Commissioner of the Clark<br />
Public Utility District In Vancouver and I here tonight speaking<br />
on behalf of the PUD.<br />
Clark PUD operates a water utility which se rves more than<br />
11,000 customers in a large geographic area of Clark County,<br />
including the areas of Hazel Dell, Salmon Creek, Heckinson,<br />
Brush Prairie and Venerator, We rely ..elusively on ground<br />
Water to serve our customers, pumping from 16 wells which have a<br />
capacity of about 12 million gallons a day.<br />
In the next fifty years, we expect Water demand to increase<br />
substantially., We plan to supply most, if not all, of this<br />
demand by pumping additional ground water.<br />
The estimated total water demand in all of Clark County at<br />
that time will be 117,000 acre feet per year, or about 38<br />
billion gallons. Of this, about 75,000 acre feet, or about 64<br />
Par cent, roan be supplied through recharge from precipitation.<br />
The remaining 36 percent may require direct recharge from the<br />
Columbia River. Per this reason, we are vitally concerned about<br />
the future of Columbia River water..<br />
We are very fearful that storage of any radioactive<br />
materials on the <strong>Hanford</strong> Nuclear Reservation could result in<br />
contamination of the Columbia River. I£ this happens, the 3.2. 4. 1<br />
ground water resources of Clark County and other areas located<br />
downstream from <strong>Hanford</strong> will be affected.<br />
Clark PUD strongly oppose. any long-term storage of<br />
radioactive materials at <strong>Hanford</strong> and I urge the Department of 2. 1. 1<br />
Energy to find a. more suitable site for disposal of these<br />
wastes.<br />
Thank you..<br />
REaiVEii DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1.4 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
aeA. VAN DVY.!<br />
(7 ta t—<br />
n m..an .r m... ce^my<br />
1 0. e.. Vancouver My<br />
O. BOaFPoS<br />
V--1 wss,
02 7 1 s<br />
W<br />
U.S.0epartment of Energy<br />
Richland Operations Office<br />
P.O. Box 550<br />
Richland, NO 99352 July 10, 1906<br />
Dear Sirs:<br />
O 07 I<br />
We wish to have the fallowing comments included in the official hearing record of<br />
/^ the draft <strong>EIS</strong> on <strong>Hanford</strong> defense high-level transuranic and tank wastes.<br />
2.1. 9 The basalt rock in the <strong>Hanford</strong> area is easily fractured." Existing factures<br />
already allow radioactive wastes stored at the site to contaminate groundwater.<br />
In turn this groundwater moves into the Columbia River which is so vital to<br />
fisheries, water transport and irrigation of the Northwest. Therefore, existing<br />
wastes must be completely solidified and stored to containers above the water<br />
table to insure that further groundwater contamination does not occur.<br />
/1<br />
3.3.<br />
. 2 With regard to considering <strong>Hanford</strong> for a high level nuclear waste repository, the<br />
4<br />
site is totally unsuitable. <strong>Hanford</strong> ranked last Of 5 sites studied in a report<br />
t required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Pct because of the fracturetl basalt problems<br />
2.1 . 1 mentioned above. In addition, most of the new waste Which would be stored at <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
will be produced in the East. This means the waste will be transported ac rots<br />
country, risking contamination of large areas from accidental spills. Therefore,<br />
the <strong>Hanford</strong> site is totally unacceptable as a radioactive waste depository, and<br />
problems with nuclear defense wastes presently stored at the site confirm this.<br />
2.5.6<br />
The ultimate solution to the radioactive waste s to rage problem is to stop generating.<br />
these wastes in the first place. This requires a total shift in our thinking<br />
about national and global security. No longer can we afford financially,<br />
ecologically, or socially to produce nuclear weapons, which threaten our existence<br />
both from the force of their combined explosive power and from the wastes produced<br />
in their manufacture. Our thinking has to catch up with the reality that<br />
dependence oa weapons to resolve our differences is obsolete (no longer useful).<br />
Instead, our mutual survival depends on cooperation and coexistance.<br />
cc: Se na to r Mark Hatfield<br />
Senator Bob Packwood<br />
Representative Ran Wyden<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Walter C. Minticeskil Vicki G. Mintkeski<br />
6815 SE 31st, Portland, OR 9]202<br />
02<br />
RECEIVED DOEERL<br />
JUL 14 IM<br />
0"9<br />
wM OMSION<br />
A .5^ ^5 lion {ter fQe sx fe of<br />
N/ vUear W^fe: SFi ' >`'here os'e so .na„y<br />
4nL(,s<br />
p, amok' v , i of life in Space.<br />
Ldhy Cg n'r- Na nford use a plan¢'r besides<br />
Ear i-h {n dump '/'heir ^[vc /ea.r WC^S ^. Sf<br />
{!TG VS. i5 Lexpn.bfe of b 3!/di n9 horn er wnd<br />
acT3a,lly Con dvc f4»p4 /, "{e on orheryc l.cne fs 7'm<br />
sure Hartford ,S taxable o U.si n^ ono,Y er<br />
plane!- -f 1<br />
71,:s.GVny<br />
^uonr of /-he wu.s ye ,"s enda.,^er; ,,.q na">ture<br />
or people<br />
4nothcr su L5>
029 030<br />
cox 5<br />
d^ ^a<br />
.<br />
HANFORD STATENEH'I<br />
I. a® deeply concerned over what seem. to me to be a dismissal ofob-<br />
11646 S. .Morrison<br />
Portland , B:rriso<br />
DA<br />
jective evidence indicating that <strong>Hanford</strong> cannot safely be a nuclear<br />
- July 5, 1986 waste depository. Further, I am concerned over the apparent die- 2. 1 . 1<br />
" RECEIVED DOERL missal of concern by a majority of the residents and representatives<br />
AL I d 199<br />
of the area.<br />
Rich Holten/<strong>EIS</strong><br />
U. S. WE<br />
WMDIVISION We who live here were not asked whether we anted to have nuclear<br />
P. 0. Box 550<br />
Richland, WA 99352<br />
energy in the area. Because it is here and has been, we have<br />
already been unwitting guinea pigs in an on going experiment to see<br />
whether nuclear development and waste disposal are compatible with<br />
Dear Mr. Hafted! life in the region. Now, finally, we are asked what we want and 2. 5. 5<br />
are not heard, are not responded to. I find this extremely fright-<br />
I have read the draft <strong>EIS</strong> summary on <strong>Hanford</strong> defense waste disposal<br />
. 3 . 3 . 1 . 1 and believe e safest permanent disposdl of hightank<br />
-level<br />
waste, TRU, and spent reactor fuel capsules is geologic disposal.<br />
I disagree with the <strong>EIS</strong> assessment of the short-term radiological<br />
impact Of geologic disposals reference alternative disposal on<br />
summary page 17. If the highdouble-wall -level<br />
tank liquid wastes<br />
an be handled with a safety lae n at 0-9, th en so can th e single-<br />
When we express our verifi able concerns over destroying the habit-<br />
ability of the entire region through increasing the radioactivity of<br />
the Columbia River, political considerations take precedence and we<br />
ln1<br />
3.3.1.10 wall tank sludge. ening. I an afraid--for myself and for my children and for all<br />
N<br />
Nuclear waste managers have long claimed th e feasibility of<br />
advanced waste management technology--vitrification. It is<br />
other residents of this entire region.<br />
3.1.8.9 time for DOE to demonstrate the large scale engineering feasibility o£ vitrification, beginning wi th all the high-level tank wastes<br />
Statements have been or can be made about the irresponsible risks in 3.4. 2. 2<br />
at <strong>Hanford</strong> current and future.<br />
transporting nuclear waste many, many miles across country . The<br />
Please add these comments to the record of public comments.<br />
accident in Ohio is but proof of the inevitability of a similar<br />
accident in the transportation of nuclear waste from east of the<br />
S<br />
Mississippi. Evidence already exists concerning the hi ghe r. costs of 4 .1.22<br />
Si incerely, gq<br />
^^ building a facility at <strong>Hanford</strong>, of the expected higher loss of life<br />
. Dan L. Rniesner in construction, and of the already existing leakage of nuclear<br />
waste. Mat sort of evidence is needed to have decision makers<br />
realise that a nuclear waste disposal site at <strong>Hanford</strong> is not only<br />
ill advised and irresponsible but positively negligent as well]<br />
1<br />
RECEIVEi. M&RL<br />
aUL IA 1986<br />
WM DINSION
.j 2 a<br />
tN<br />
+1<br />
\!i ^: J 031<br />
2 .1. 1<br />
If this hearing is sincere, then I urge you to realize and car ry<br />
back to Washington and to the Congress the message that <strong>Hanford</strong> is P:T<br />
a site that should be conside re d as a nuclear waste depository.<br />
Thank you.<br />
some<br />
WFIVED ME- RU -<br />
JUL 1410<br />
WMONISION<br />
duly 4. 1986<br />
00,6 1<br />
Peter Frothingham<br />
3131 N.E. Emerson<br />
Portland, OR 9 7 211<br />
YOU have listed 4 options coneeseing RECEIV ED QOEAL rMloactive defense C<br />
JUL 1 a 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
R N Holt...<br />
waste- none Of the acceptable. May I ask wuy <strong>Hanford</strong> 1. ellosed 3. 3.5 • 1<br />
so continue runz1ng-producing anemia. if there a no safe may of<br />
disposal? I emaerecand <strong>Hanford</strong> produce. plutonium for the<br />
Fentegon-I suggest a bra option, give than the waste. I know 2 .<br />
C J .<br />
V<br />
you wan t t offer this optiong for too many people might vote for<br />
it. V. ..ad e to close down Monte. sad we moat never allow it<br />
to become tn. nation' natio. smOlear seat. dump. Let shoe. who mane the 2. 1 . 1<br />
deoa.i.n to make it, seep 1t.<br />
W<br />
W.<br />
c^^101.9 911K<br />
2
RECEIVED DDERL<br />
6/11/86<br />
799 N. 79th JUL 14 M<br />
Seattle, M 98103<br />
032<br />
WM 111VISION<br />
003 ,A<br />
RECEIVEGc.Rl Conservation Plus Windows, Inc.<br />
Autnoriiea HF Dun n KcrgseaP Dealer<br />
JUL 14 c Part<br />
108812 th ve 9u<br />
Avenue Mvh Nd n k 980<br />
W MONIS ION Issaquah. Wa3hington 98027 1.<br />
2061 39 1 g319<br />
-YYOt^ ^7tl i 1 o"^t4c . ^.ZJ'<br />
033<br />
o4a3<br />
BIT<br />
i .l fi.a.YY<br />
Mr tie ('Ye„<br />
z,—,.—z,_ ^—/—fir—3<br />
W<br />
2 L .1. 1<br />
Mis is in regard to your ..eking public input on the<br />
question of using <strong>Hanford</strong> as a permanent nuclear waste<br />
repository. I am a community college Math/Science<br />
instructor. Spring quarter of 1986 I taught a course titled<br />
'The Problems of Nuclear Arms.' An part of my college ...ree<br />
ve discussed my <strong>Hanford</strong>. We watched a video that had been made<br />
on campus the previous year in which <strong>Hanford</strong> personnel<br />
and members of WASHPIRG discussed the pros and coma of using<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong>. We looked at the government report on <strong>Hanford</strong> and<br />
other writings on the subject.<br />
Our unanamous opinion was that <strong>Hanford</strong> was an unfit site for<br />
nuclear waat. repository. The site is geologically<br />
natabel. Although travel time could of the radionuclides<br />
could be, as long as 80,000 years, it could also be as short<br />
as 20 years. "a close proximity of <strong>Hanford</strong> to the Columbia<br />
makes this too big a risk to take. Why is <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
being consederd then? It is purely for political reasons.<br />
On the one hand <strong>Hanford</strong> is already Owned by the federal<br />
government. On the other hand, the Eastern states bhigh<br />
have most of the waste also have more of the votes in<br />
Congress. Please take <strong>Hanford</strong> off the list of candidates<br />
3.4.3.1 before an accident many times Wo rse than Chernobyl oc cu rs in<br />
Washington state.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
2 h G ^e Qom_ -^ _ 3.3.5.2<br />
--was rte 3 -- cH.^a^r^-..^z- ^^^—T-^^3<br />
,u^a 2 ^,.^ ^. s ^ ^r mod, J<br />
ztAe-<br />
Mecdone C. Coskey<br />
' tC?ear DUAant¢eM8FGOgc'.Ch HPAAr"Ovcd<br />
Ise aR In Wgtlp6 [p kmde WY emva elmppY wl[tlOUrpmlu[Ratltl Sp,vlR.<br />
a/b s0 [MSewp spSOUrtes as cup/I
033 033<br />
31The vast majority of dual pane windows are too close together tc<br />
properly insulate At least 1 ]/4" dead air space is needed (American Society of<br />
Heating, Refrigeration and A r Conditioning Engineers); most dual pane is only<br />
1 r2"<br />
'x detection is, 1 -- only half tree story. The Retrotec Door Fan also<br />
measures the extent of the leakage. While the fan is running, a built in<br />
microcomputer displays questions on its screen which the operator answers. The<br />
computer then determines and prints out the home's air change per hour, and its<br />
equivalent leakeage area.<br />
W<br />
Q)<br />
4-<br />
f=<br />
QJ<br />
H-a<br />
C<br />
E<br />
00 O U<br />
O<br />
4: Neither dual pane windows nor storm windows are effective in stopp_'g<br />
air leaks, which account for half of the heat loss through windows (U.S.<br />
Department of Energy).<br />
Althoughplastic sheeting was the most efficient at the time, it has its own<br />
dlaadvant ages; inconvenience. unattractiveness. and the necessity of yearly<br />
rep laceaent.<br />
The ideal treatment for windows, according to the MIT study, is an interior,<br />
rigid acrylic in a non-aluminum, magnetically sealed frame that would eliminate<br />
air leaks through the cracks in windows. Happily, B.F. Goodrich has taken the<br />
lead with that concept, and interior acrylic windows are gaining recognition<br />
and popularity with both residential customers and commercial concerns. The<br />
added benefits of this type of system are a virtual elimination of<br />
condensation, or "sweaty" uinticws, draft , and the "cold shoulder" feeling one<br />
gets sitting near conventional glass windows.<br />
Proposed Expansion<br />
Asan established business. contractor and corporation, it is now our desire tc<br />
expand Conservation Plus Windows, Inc. This expansion will require a name<br />
change to Conservation Plus Home Services, Inc. Conservation Plus Home<br />
Services, Inc., will embrace all aspects of energy conservation and become a<br />
total, one stop source for energy conserving services. thus relieving the<br />
client of the responsibility of finding out who can do what to improve the<br />
home's thermal efficiency. Our company viii mare getting results our primary<br />
business purpose. In addition to B.F. Gcodr in:h Koroseal' windows we will<br />
install or subcontract other quality products add services to solve all the<br />
energy problems of the homeowner.<br />
Present Ray ownership and management of C.'cservation Plus Windows. Inc., consists<br />
of and Helen ^ Drougn :nusoand and wifei. Total rem ponei Dility for the<br />
W resides with the Ches oroughs Who have it:ves ted $30,000 into it. For<br />
expans ior. of the company, consultation will be needed in the areas of<br />
engineering, energy extension, accounting and law. Contractors involved in<br />
various energy areas will be utilized for installation of products.<br />
Blower Door as a Diagnostic and Marketing Tool<br />
Our primary tool for marketing and lead generation will be the Retrotec Door<br />
Fan. This diagnostic tool measures and locates air ini filtration. Known<br />
gene: ically as the "blower door", this equipment simply either draws air cut of<br />
the home or, conversely, pressurizes the home, enabling detection, through the<br />
aid of smoke pencils, of air currents in or out Home owners are invariably<br />
amazed by this quick anc simple deaccstration of lust where air leakage is<br />
occurring in their hones.<br />
The door test has tremendous impact on the homeowner; it arouses interest and<br />
thorougly establishes credibility and the need for conserving measures. Ghat<br />
better way to explain energy problems to the homeowner than to phys1wlly<br />
demonstrate them?<br />
The Retrotec Door Fan serves as a marketing tool in the following manner<br />
(1) A low cost, 30 minute retrotec test for the homeowner is advertised<br />
(2)A trained technician's visit establishes credibility and physically<br />
demonstrates a need for our company's services.<br />
(3) The salesperson's visit is easily scheduled because Conservation Plus<br />
Home Services, Inc., has high credibility and has demonstrated energy losses to<br />
the homeowner.<br />
(4) With credibility, lead generation and referrals are no problem<br />
Blower doors have been used in Europe, particularly in Sweden, for years and<br />
are just now being used in the U.S. They have been featured on "This Old<br />
House", " National Geographic", and CBS's news specia ḷ . "The Energy Crunch - the<br />
BestNay Out - . Presently there are very few contractors in the Puget Sound<br />
area actively using blower door technology. Cost for the complete Retrotec<br />
package, including the Door Fan. sales and marketing program, tools and<br />
supplies for the First 50 program (see next page), and training session with<br />
travel costs, is $15,000.<br />
The Market<br />
The market for energy conservation. both residential and commercial, is<br />
tremendous, especially during these times of spiraling energy costs. The<br />
typical home loses 40-601 of its heat through leaxs. 5aving that 40-601<br />
through house-tightening and application of such quality products as B.F.<br />
Goodrich Korosea. — windows makes much more sense than continuing to pay higher<br />
energy costs. Our company's scratch-resistant acrylic window system (Lucite SAR<br />
by DuPont), with the advantages acrylic offers in thermal efficiency, safety<br />
glazing, sound abatement and ultraviolet light infiltration, is especially<br />
suitable for commercial application. Blower door systems are available for<br />
commercial building analysis as well as residential. Expansion plans in the<br />
future would include purchase of commercial blower door equipment.<br />
The next energy crunch will be a severe one. causing a tremendous demand on any<br />
company With the talent, skills, products and services to solve energy<br />
problems. The bottom line for Conservation Plus Home Services, Inc., will be<br />
providing energy savings results.<br />
O<br />
C)<br />
O<br />
E3<br />
fD<br />
Q<br />
CD<br />
CD<br />
Q.
kj3" 033<br />
Save 30-60% on<br />
heating/cooling costs<br />
How to keep heating bills down<br />
without bundling up.<br />
CONSERVATION PLUS WINDOWS, INC.<br />
presents<br />
B.F. GOODRICH KOROSEALTm WINDOW SYSTEM<br />
"THE INSIDE ADVANTAGE"<br />
• Savo 30-60 % on houtg/eoobng cosh - rypcal pay back 3-5 year.<br />
• 2-3 umm moor energy eBi— than glass/aluummen smmt wind— also more eBuicnt than thermopan-<br />
• Dnman
m ®33<br />
Fixing the Problumis)<br />
Year 1 Rev.. P,ejectiane<br />
QJ<br />
The Department of Energy 's First 50 Program Will be emPlOyed. The program is<br />
called for 50 energy sa y ing products and adiose that pay back With a 50%<br />
return ed investment. "The way to wave energy le through a let of small,<br />
simple, mundane, ordinary, low technolog y measures. When you put enough of<br />
these together, the savings are not Just a feu percent, but a very substantial<br />
evinga in energy." ("The Energy crunch - The Beet Way, Oak'-, CBS Neu. special<br />
report). Theme small steps deal primaril y with air Leakage problems which are<br />
uncovered by the Door Fan, but the y also Include measures to reduce hot water<br />
consumption and improve heat distribution, among. others.<br />
Hanttii"ales Pro iecti0n Mont a I-3<br />
Grass Sales.<br />
Profit<br />
10 glower door testa 0 $100 $1000 $550<br />
5 House doctoring with the First 50<br />
Program p $1500 7500 3750<br />
W<br />
LO<br />
4-<br />
G<br />
v<br />
s<br />
0U<br />
U<br />
O<br />
v<br />
Side by side with the First 50 Program, our company will offer S.F. Goodrich<br />
Horoseal' and other quality windows. He will subcontract out other major work<br />
u.h ea heating, ventilation and air conditioning eYet... iRVAS): ceiling, wall<br />
and floor insulation and other energy saving products and services of benefit<br />
to the homeowner. We will rely on established, licensed, bonded and insured<br />
.."eccom. far all 9abCant...ted Da 81naa 9.<br />
The client will pleasantly experience: (1) Increased savings of an ergy in the<br />
3G-60% range, (2) assurance that Conservation Plus Nome. 3ervicea,Inc., will M<br />
one atop service company, and (3) quality control inspections which will<br />
Include, most importantly, a post blower door test. By using the Door Fan to<br />
conduct both before and after testa, Conservation Plus Nome Services, Inc.,<br />
will Provide a level of quality control unknown to the energy saving industry.<br />
Wastvide Solariums<br />
Other quality Products handled by the company will include Westview Solariums.<br />
These well engineered, premanufactured solariums are a very attractive addition<br />
to any home. uestview Solariums are functional, a iry , goad locking solar<br />
collectors with many innovations for providing substantial heat for the home.<br />
Carefully designed features include customized, interior laminated beams which<br />
are treated for long life. These means are precisel y cut and bored, and<br />
display the beauty of natural wood as well as the strength of laminated fir.<br />
The solarium exterior features bronze anodized aluminum which is moth<br />
attractive and maintenance-free. Glazing can be ad.pted1 to the glen's needs.<br />
Single pane Elea. up through 1 3/9" triple glaze unite can be installed.<br />
Spacial glass such as Heat Mirror, low E, tempered or laminated safety glass<br />
may also be used. Theme exquisitely beautiful and functional .unrooms meet the<br />
demands of the moat discriminating homeowner, and are surprisingly affordable.<br />
2 New windows 0 $3000 per home 6000 3000<br />
1 Nestvfew Solarium 25000 12500<br />
1 WemrstOve 3000 1500<br />
3 Insulation 0 $1000 3000 1500<br />
Replacing broken window. with acrylic 2000 1000<br />
TOTAL, MONTHLY PROJECTION $47500 $22750<br />
Note: Commercial bids Submitted for garomeal— Wim GWW! $5000-$SO000honth.<br />
Commercial bids generally take several months for approval.<br />
Nonthlv Sal P i M hs -<br />
The 3-6 month sales projection does not exceed the first 3 month projection,<br />
except for possible addition of comaerical application of goroseal`^ windows if<br />
previous commercial bids are approved..<br />
09[1111 1 P Months 6-12<br />
20 Blower door test. 0 Joe 2000 1000<br />
B-House doctoring with the First 50<br />
Erhard. B $1500 12000 6000<br />
0<br />
/7<br />
n<br />
0<br />
a<br />
C+<br />
f1<br />
r'b<br />
fD<br />
CL<br />
a Hew windows .12000 6000<br />
2 Regicide .ola plOB B $25000 50000 25000<br />
2 WoxlykdVmm 0 3000 6000 - 3000<br />
6 Insulation 0 1000 6000 3000<br />
Replacing broken uintlowa xi1h acrylic 6000 3000<br />
Commercial installation of Koro ... I — uLmmdo w 10000 $000<br />
TOTAL, MONTHLY PROJECTION $304000 $52000
033 034<br />
Year 1 Projected Overhead and Operating Expense.<br />
One time e xpo®a: Retrotec Door Fan, sales<br />
and marketing Program, tooling and Supplies,<br />
training for installers, transportation and<br />
lodging for 2 People 415000<br />
^i<br />
0034<br />
Year 1 Total of Monthly Ssoenditurea:<br />
u -v+AlrlN l) / M.ty Pfl'14J'3^<br />
Shop overM.d - rent. lights, insurance, etc. 4800<br />
aQ^.<br />
4-<br />
Advertisin g 0 1000/month 12000<br />
Yelephom with answering Service 4200<br />
Contr'actor's insurance, pending , licenes. 2500<br />
!:. ^m v. tt -Gitabtx. ;^ . 4 - ^z a/.<br />
J:r lltl^VM.(" . fw.^1 tw3<br />
. •JA1i4 L^'AC 2s ^. ^..<br />
( '<br />
C)<br />
4J c<br />
fL<br />
'O<br />
•r<br />
c<br />
U<br />
0<br />
Legal. accounting, banking fees 4000<br />
YEARLY TOIAL (excludin g *15,000 for Retrotec Door Fen $33500<br />
Package)<br />
Philosophy add Par .... I Notes<br />
Bad" a strong coneervationlst, L e• coerned nc about environnental problems<br />
related to energy production. As acontractor, I an Interested in developin g e<br />
business that Is able to provide energy Savings results in the 30-60% range.<br />
fN (.sy.nC:4'L.':^/ 9_ L/^Q-/Y.1-i.V .GJY tu.<br />
,/Jt.YN,tI ^ai f t44lJ.hrn J µn.^-4i-;,.,^<br />
Y /'JA'/./.A.^ll'nA.L 'P-(.2['3^iCA- W,f<br />
.^icAU,,,cx^ i o- U*-v,ll^A.^f ,rrcrN-^. 2.1.1<br />
.('l'u..LpuJ t Ut,^ v : (Jot[^ti (t 0.<br />
'l .<br />
Printing ..III, - secretarial help . 6000<br />
The recent international diaa.ter in Chernobyl vividly de on.tratea how fragile<br />
our technology 1.. Risks for. add BUCK diameter. naturally increase AS e turn to<br />
nuclear Feuer for greater greater e ne rgy production. With regard to nonan<br />
Clear energy sources. fevlfte that our o thermal,<br />
plant An<br />
Centralia, Washington /with twice the. tp L apaE ty f Isaie ) C 15<br />
tone of nP i inute d that it Is the a nd largestof<br />
Polluti n 1n Wash ngt Fee Ali th t the ast xpeneive Atio<br />
Project th [ ce of the arth I. the pre. t atS pt t rest r fi h. To.. on<br />
our e n C lumbi Riv yetis Nigh 1 1 nu 1 ar t -01 p sa3 id rain,<br />
canoe depleti etc all' re indi atl e f the f t ST t the high t h ology<br />
approach has very ssri.u. long Car. environmental Problems. Jahn Nuir,. founder<br />
of the Sierra Club, w correct when he stated • When we try to pick out<br />
anything by itself, wefind s it is hitched to everything else in the universe .<br />
AS an ex-che.istry end Physics teacher, I have grave co terns about continuing<br />
to expand our technology to produce • e energy. A more connon-sense, low<br />
t ec hnology approach i Simply to use lee. by plugging the holes. Conservation<br />
an be A Say oflife that will not diminish liveability, but enhance the<br />
quality of life for everyone .<br />
rl4..i ^-11/'^-ft Q.cYVYUY(7N*-m'..<br />
RECEIVCU DGE-RL<br />
4115 AJ V[Lh) 61 1,^ IV<br />
JAL I A 1906 e„m^a ter] ^ibyaa<br />
WM DIVISION - -<br />
Summation<br />
Quality Se not a luxury; it Is an investment. Conservation Plus home Services,<br />
Inc., a nue stop energy company, will be Proud to offer quality product. and<br />
services, beginning with the RetrotecBoor Fan, the First 50 Program, the B.F.<br />
Condtich goroseal° Window System and Westolew Solariums. The blower door<br />
demonstrates the problem.. Rouse tightening. Airti ght windowa, insulation,<br />
aolariuns, eta, all hel p solve thee, with the result of energy savings in tine<br />
30-604 range and quality central this tE such endeavors.
1<br />
035 036<br />
RECEIVED DC' .. _ L 9d//f<br />
006L<br />
2.1.1 "^<br />
uUL14 06 !" "" a<br />
/d, lfr6<br />
HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
VJMDIVISION<br />
PUBLIC HEARING<br />
-<br />
.0035<br />
AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE<br />
RECEIVED<br />
JUL 1 4 06<br />
^ w ? rb ^zw^y r^ P<br />
1 - J^ ^ vt .e^,„^,p --j-^,t .,r/::.^- w ^J<br />
O<br />
,^.w....kry wt,r3y.. "- .^"`
Kj<br />
3<br />
03'7<br />
0037<br />
00037<br />
03'7<br />
eo37<br />
RAIFORD DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
PUBLIC HEARING<br />
RECE'r,<br />
AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE JUL 14 M<br />
l^4<br />
o c)EEIJ 0.lO P hi G.^ ^
fi<br />
ig ,-<br />
^5 a<br />
m 1<br />
Js<br />
W<br />
CO30<br />
TTSalHOnx asFm^ TiQ{ u.s. vsuni gsrf oPa+mcy<br />
RECEIVED DOE-.2L<br />
sebmitted bv, Mcrgy Wi llis<br />
Portland, Oregon<br />
Dat 4n duly 10, 1986<br />
JUL 14 1986<br />
V/M DIVISION<br />
My acme Is Mors, Wi ll is, and I live is Portl and, Oregon. I m here to<br />
Present the yews of my family and mends.<br />
We reelice th e difficult taak before yo., had we do hair a viable solution<br />
to the melee., waste storage p roMM can be Lewd.<br />
We have man, ...came about the selection of <strong>Hanford</strong> m ova of the three<br />
2 . 1 sites which could became the nation's first high-level nuclear waste d,mp.<br />
First of all, of th e three sites under comidaatlon, 4anroni Ss the Daly<br />
site bisected by a sajct river . It is believed that water: would be th e most<br />
accessible cease to oar y radiation throughout th e region. Over 2 ed11.1ov<br />
people in Oregon and Washington live along th e shores of the ColumMa River.<br />
By the Department of ljargy'. own figures, over 155 .1111. gallows of nuclear<br />
waste water is being dwpal into the Columbia Weer awry year, and 3.4 billim<br />
gallons of chemical wastes are d,mi d into the Meforl se ll yeatly and are<br />
also finding their wry into the ColumMe.<br />
1he ability of the geological structure of the ar ea is also in question<br />
'for, the permanent storage of high-level radiomtive caste. The b it reek,<br />
2 .1.1 found below th e coffees at <strong>Hanford</strong>, is basically laysre of lava now foroed<br />
into fractured racks m the lava coolad.. This type of rack is known to eas il y<br />
crack and orumble.<br />
The <strong>Hanford</strong> area has already experienced earthquake activity the nuclear,<br />
3.2.2. 3<br />
Regulate y Commisslon ,claims it is feasible for an earthquako to reach as high<br />
m 6.5 on the Richter s.al. to t hi s area. Does this mend is to I.4<br />
If all of th e waste were to b e, tan-portal by truck, a shi poewt of radio-<br />
3.4.2.2 active wrote would arrive at <strong>Hanford</strong> every 90 ate t... Wart, of the tens aGa<br />
wed would carry the east. through Oregon (1-5,84.205 &395), thaaby jeopardicing<br />
the live s of essay people.<br />
pegc z<br />
it bas already been pruveo that aver th e pmt 40 yearn th e region ,un<br />
been affected by water vW a$rIxrae contrni.vation ikon <strong>Hanford</strong>. Yt the east.<br />
is to be transported thra h Oregon and busica upatram on the Columbia, we<br />
snider the increased fiche to our health. AadlovetSVe pollution is known to<br />
eamn a--- and birth defects. Mere is also the strong llkllhood for act food 3.5.5.1<br />
chain to be Contaminated by radiation. This would affect,^ot only, th e people<br />
in this area, hat would affect many people th roughout this country and th e world.<br />
Approximately 20% of Oregon'. economy Ss on bed ov the Columbia River. Can<br />
xe really afford to jeopa rdise. 20% oI ow coshes, an s e to we already Tense<br />
to be flawed and in a regioo . that is straggling oconomlcellyl<br />
Me Us.. Departm ent of A Wy will w<br />
as te $1.02 bi<br />
ll ion to 'study' a site<br />
at<br />
ri<br />
3.2.6. 1<br />
that originally ranked 1ps_t on their list, and . site we already know is 2. 1 . 1<br />
cacceptable.<br />
There is another question that we all most struggle wi th, and that de th e<br />
fact that each of the radiomtive waste 'to to stored aemexhere Is from the<br />
contlanad Tredwtim of n eelar wesiens. It is iscomprehonslble that we<br />
.i'lnue to laoduse mom to from weapons :-..production -ben act g.ver .t 2. 5 . 6<br />
doe. at know hon to aafay aeries of the 40 ,sore of east¢ which is presently<br />
bei a^ -tared at <strong>Hanford</strong>. Continuing to produce wrr awelear warheads to at<br />
the demands. of Cur pfesmt ABminietatlon Is not m sass tem. soluties<br />
to world conflicts aryl continues to baimt the health asd caeuxity of all<br />
Mexicans.<br />
More are eery, reas ons why <strong>Hanford</strong> is the poorest choice for th e ®anent<br />
mate ropocitory. I hays . tried is share a few concerns um yo. tow. my £ee lly<br />
cad fkdeela would ask you to placer weigh your decision carefully. We aek you<br />
to consider that if you. pact children: and grand-children lived in the aces<br />
saxuundlM <strong>Hanford</strong>, would you s ea t It to be the mom's swelee: dumping ground<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 ON<br />
WM DIVISION
039 939<br />
C^39<br />
HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
PUBLIC 'HEARING<br />
AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE RECEIVED DDE-RL<br />
1. How did you learn of the hearin g s? JUL 1 4 IUBB<br />
News paper — Radio _ TV _ Mail --WM[ )IVISWwork<br />
Word of mouth _ Other (please specify)p}^_<br />
6l<br />
2. Did you attend one of the <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Open Houses in<br />
February or March? Yes _ No<br />
,Vol<br />
^R<br />
//FP^^Co ^L fl Y-CQ"'Ye ^e^OG.L!^Gr.^^,„-4^ a<br />
3. Did you attend one of the <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Informational<br />
Workshops in May or June? .Yes _ No<br />
4. Did You have access to 'a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact<br />
Statement or the Summar y ? Yes No CL<br />
ale<br />
84^ s^-u-^t S^<br />
? 5. Please rate each of the following:<br />
A<br />
Hearings moderator excetk<br />
Very Good Gg_otl Fair Paor<br />
Procedures for recording comments<br />
Air<br />
Ph ysical arran g emen xs .^, c orcA ^y— y„a d^ A rno astern 7C __<br />
4ommen a hua.• u. c. .v^C.+nsd.inaaâau.^<br />
Process for !runs resing t comment _ ^y<br />
Five minute comment period<br />
6. Please share any additional comments On ma y have about these hearings.<br />
wsr ia_i^kao^pa i +,.r q ice, ia, a^ i .^ -<br />
2.3.2.12 da L<br />
1t. M^a Z<br />
X<br />
o-<br />
lhveuy, :unsAIO nV.i,..^J. Ice, W:I"ulhvt Lk4-Y,aal Ja,Q0t.y_<br />
7. Anv salt itional comment .about the process of submitti ng wr ten<br />
comments on the Draft. Environmental Im pact Statement?<br />
d(^[elrintt'^V y /.•5.,[2m'ncrt%C[ifPSIC'—Er^^ . ••<br />
NCO min z2m<br />
-`7^<br />
Alu<br />
^^<br />
,/, •/- A... gyp[<br />
WAILW"CO /Yl2D^Gi^^(/J<br />
a-W<br />
7^ Sung<br />
ie^ ^y<br />
iC<br />
eaV ch-r^/^'u,7^-o^,1^UP^^k-eye<br />
2.3.1.14<br />
ay —t1;1<br />
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS HEARING AND TAKING THE TIME TO FILL OUT<br />
THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.<br />
^P//j'r'-^2^^•<br />
,^Z2G W ar>< ^'f<br />
©^ F"12<br />
"Y'a,.tig o/z 97201<br />
IVE60<br />
Lrl O
k<br />
.^ ij<br />
is<br />
BE '<br />
3 Inland<br />
Empire<br />
Regional<br />
Conference<br />
RESOLUTION<br />
aa4 O<br />
REU : I JAG L : (XE_.iL<br />
JUL 1A 1986<br />
WMOIJISION<br />
oa4l<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> .Nuclear ReservatiostRECEIVEi'r DOE-RL<br />
Statement by<br />
JUL 14 1986<br />
LION HONKER<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
4.<br />
Ul"<br />
3 . 3 . 2.1<br />
WHEREAS: the Department of Energy has issued Its Draft<br />
Environmental Impact Statement on disposal of defense waste currently<br />
stored at <strong>Hanford</strong>: and<br />
WHEREAS: the two basic options are to continue to stare the present<br />
and future nuclear waste at <strong>Hanford</strong> or to ship it elsewhere: and<br />
WHEREAS: continued storage at <strong>Hanford</strong> means the transporting of<br />
future defense nuclear Waste to <strong>Hanford</strong> and storage elsewhere means the<br />
transporting of existing defense nuclear waste from <strong>Hanford</strong>; and<br />
WHEREAS: any transportation of radioactive material poses some<br />
danger: and<br />
WHEREAS: transportation through urban areas creates more risk than<br />
through less densely populated areas; and<br />
WHEREAS: the Draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates that<br />
the Department of Energy will make available money to ensure adequate<br />
emergency response and that federal support is also available from Federal<br />
Emergency. Management Administration, Environmental Protection Agency,<br />
Food and Drug Administration, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission;<br />
and<br />
- WHEREAS: local governments bear the ultimate responsibility for<br />
emergency response planning; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY<br />
RESOLVED BY THE INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL CONFERENCE:<br />
1. The Department of Energy is urged to employ the most favorable<br />
technological means to solidify and store hazardous wastes at their point of<br />
origin, and<br />
. 1.. The Department of Energy Is urged to choose that option which<br />
creates the least risk and requires the least amount of nationwide<br />
3.4.2.2<br />
transportation of defense waste, and<br />
3.4.2.24<br />
3. The Department of Energy and other federal agencies are urged<br />
to make available to local emergency response providers the support<br />
prom; setl in the Draft Environmental impact Statement.<br />
Adopted by the Inland Empire Be I Conference May 21. 1S IA.<br />
My name I. Don Banker, United States Representative from the<br />
Third District of Washington State. I am sorry that I cannot be here<br />
personally to comment on the Drat Environmental Impact Statement on<br />
the disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense High-level Nuclear Waste. This issue<br />
is very important to all of us and the decision we make on how to deal<br />
with the defense waste at <strong>Hanford</strong> will potentially affect our region<br />
for centuries.<br />
I em pleased that the people of this region have become s<br />
knowledgeable about this. issue. It is my hope that this increased<br />
level of knowledge and awareness will help to create better policies<br />
and decisions in the future.<br />
Ln making a decision on what to do with the roughly 43 years of<br />
defense nuclear waste already stored at <strong>Hanford</strong>, the highest priority<br />
must be the protection of the health and environment. nt. Presently,<br />
forty-five million gallons of high-level radioactive wastes are stored<br />
at <strong>Hanford</strong>, mo stly in 149 aging underground tank... More than 500,000<br />
gallons have Leaked from these tanks, posing a serious threat to the<br />
safety of the region. In the wake of these problems, <strong>Hanford</strong> must be<br />
brought into compliance as soon as possible with state and federal<br />
standards for nuclear and hazardous wastes.<br />
I share the concerns of Governor Gardner and the Washington State<br />
Advisory Council towards the draft <strong>EIS</strong>. More attention most be paid<br />
to a number of issues, including the geologic instability of the<br />
Columbia Basin, Yakima Indian land claims, and compliance with current<br />
state and federal laws on nuclear waste management and clean-up.<br />
The question of military nuclear waste storage at <strong>Hanford</strong> must<br />
also be Considered in the context of other nuclear activities at the<br />
Reaef,az iou: Ongoing production of plutonium for weapons procurement<br />
is increasing the amount of high-level defense wastes. Large amounts<br />
of low-level wastes have been dumped in open trenches and crypts which<br />
permit same radioactive wastes to leach in groundwater supplies.<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> Continuesto -be a leading candidate for the dubious<br />
distinction of the nation's high-level commercial waste repository.<br />
In my View, it is dangerous and unwise to make one site the nuclear<br />
junkyard for all of the nation's military fired commercial nuclear<br />
wastes.<br />
3.1.4.26<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
2.4.2.1<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
2.3.1.14<br />
2.2.10<br />
2.1.1<br />
o ac< Hearer, FaFr n<br />
Fifth Hot . cnv not syubn¢. wx,Mngmn Msol Ghone Inch 45sw65 / mneh as 3556<br />
- bg 6 ra
f .- 2 _ f 3 0 i P"<br />
041 042<br />
^P<br />
RECEIVED DOERL<br />
dUL 141986 f;<br />
RECEIVED DOEAL<br />
WM DIVISION aUL 14%86<br />
Fuel,<br />
. _- en0 a'. WM DIVISION<br />
A variety of factors make <strong>Hanford</strong> a poor site fee increased<br />
v M1t ano O.--na G..rce<br />
DOD wastes or the Commercial waste re p ository. Given the area's - F.D. Eox ssu<br />
complex geology, high grndwater ou levels and proximity to the<br />
Rvcbland. wrr :vas_<br />
Columbia River, any accident at <strong>Hanford</strong> could have devastating<br />
3.4.3.1 effects for the entire Northwest. n..emen.<br />
2. 1.1<br />
Most experts had ranked <strong>Hanford</strong> last on the list of potential" to le o .rtum tv no<br />
to r tne.<br />
repository sites, but DOE placed <strong>Hanford</strong> among the top three. I, - xstes. t 4. cano ause er<br />
personally, believe OOE's decision was based more an politics than --a-='.. ano vn .n car e_azn .n rn.^ sup .roc c.<br />
scientific<br />
It appears that DOE e has selected <strong>Hanford</strong> for<br />
its cha to t because it n as the path of least<br />
a<br />
ltl sad-E F_'NEfJ'. Gees<br />
resistance, given <strong>Hanford</strong> • slong history of nuclear work. n - aS i.at<br />
a. a - ft sn nuld be wr r^nerrc _,., e 3.3.1.1<br />
DOEactio n has E e damaged the integrity of the<br />
,election process. Strongcorrectivesteps needed. I support t. t n<br />
GovernorG d recommendation that we temporarily halt the d t 3.2.4.1<br />
selection process,<br />
2.2.14<br />
g back to the characterization selection stage, a ra ,es , r,e o. -e.v ne m thew<br />
and review the need for a and r aitory. I will be working with a nusi o a,<br />
the other members of the Northwest Congressional delegation to push<br />
for the G s plan.<br />
t e<br />
while<br />
debate the permanent p t ry e., the government 11 ne F nnnt n= .an,...e ,n a tear..ng ra 3.3.2.1<br />
3, 3.4.2 should move ahead with the Monitored Retrrvable Storage Facility to<br />
provide safe<br />
safe<br />
storage of<br />
wants until a final solution is in<br />
3.3.5. 2<br />
place. In addition, research into promising alternatives to deep t- n<br />
geological disposal should be stepped up rather than cut back. b ten n11 ..e .r _ce .nzu<br />
w.<br />
3 .3.1.1<br />
How to safely dispose of the nation's growing high-level nuclear<br />
2.2 . 1<br />
waste is one Of the most difficult issues we face today. If we look '^can^ ...-3t m^ -am mcca .a nx m, rats - -<br />
at it rationally, than we can reach a feasible solution. But it is<br />
t<br />
critical that the facts about the <strong>Hanford</strong> site take precedence over<br />
—t.,<br />
-<br />
political expediency<br />
b` t t air.n aorcaav<br />
=_ v neo .. rat<br />
a r a m ce<br />
c44v<br />
3.2 . 4. 1<br />
J<br />
a- s'.E- w St.<br />
va^^c oraver. Wore5^6e64 -
£ 4 5<br />
Yi l:I<br />
T g pD43<br />
MQ'p ^TT<br />
EC<br />
oc<br />
JUL 141986^0z<br />
R<br />
^ Sp NA^pNFpEHH IN^R<br />
ATP H O . D NE'$E u^ryV p^ IO rySpEATEMHI M1' ^ WMDNi$ION<br />
10,198.6<br />
Ca43<br />
043<br />
RECEIVEb DOE-RL<br />
THE HONORABLE LES AUCOIN<br />
ace 70 1986 JUL 1 4 1986 ^,CQ3<br />
WM DIVI$10N<br />
s<br />
A<br />
d<br />
2.2.1<br />
2.2.10<br />
2.2.10<br />
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF<br />
ENERGY'S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE DISPOSAL<br />
OF HANFORD 61GH-LEVEL DEFENSE WASTES.<br />
FORTY YEARS OF DISPOSAL OF WASTES FROM HANFORD ' S DEFENSE.<br />
OPERATIONS HAVE ALREADY LEFT A BLIGHT ON THE LANDSCAPE OF THE<br />
PACIFIC NORTHWEST. SO IT IS DOUBLY IMPORTANT THAT AS YOU NOW<br />
CONSIDER FUTURE DISPOSAL PLANS, THAT YOU FULLY EXAMINE PAST AND<br />
CURRENT DISPOSAL PRACTICES AT HANFORD THAT WE BELIEVE ARE<br />
UNACCEPTABLE.<br />
BECAUSE OF MY CONCERN OVER THE POTENTIALLY DISASTROUS<br />
CONSEQUENCES OF CONTINUING WITH THE STATUS QUO AT HANFORD, I<br />
PUSHED FOR SEVERAL AMENDMENTS IN THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE<br />
THIS YEAR. I S M HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE HERE TODAY THAT THE COMMITTEE<br />
HAS APPROVED MY PLAN WHICH DOES FOUR THINGS!<br />
"EXPRESSES CONGRESSIONAL CONCERN OVER THE CONTINUED DISPOSAL<br />
OF MILITARY LIQUID WASTES INTO THE SOIL AT HANFORD)<br />
`GIVES THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 120 DAYS TO DEVELOP A PLAN<br />
FOR CEASING THIS PRACTICE AND INSTITUTING ALTERNATIVE<br />
DISPOSAL METHODS:<br />
*REQUIRES AN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THESE ALTERNATIVES:<br />
2 .2 . 10<br />
*REQUIRES A SCHEDULE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL<br />
REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
MILITARY .MEETS THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS THAT COMMERCIAL<br />
FACILITIES MUST MEET.<br />
I HAVE ALSO BEEN WORKING WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL<br />
SURVEY TO PURSUE INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF 2.2.13<br />
MILITARY WASTE DISPOSAL ON WATER QUALITY IN THE COLUMBIA<br />
RIVER, THEY HAVE NOW AGREED TO UNDERTAKE A SHORT-TERM<br />
SURVEILLANCE STUDY. OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW THE HANFORD<br />
RESERVATION DURING THE SUMMER LOW-FLOW PERIODS. ILOOK FORWARD<br />
TO REVIEWING. THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY AND URGE DOE TO 00 THE<br />
SAME. ONE THING THAT IS A CONTINUING SOURCE OF CONCERN TO ME<br />
IS THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AFULL-BLOWN STUDY OF THE 4.1.25<br />
HYDROLOGY IN THIS AREA JU4T FOUR MILES FROM THE COLUMBIA RIVER.<br />
ENERGY SECRETARY HERRINGTON PLEDGED LAST SEPTEMBER "THAT THE<br />
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WILL BE DEDICATED TO CORRECTING THE<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL . PROBLEMS WE NOW HAVE AND ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK<br />
FOR ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE.°<br />
HE ADDED, AND I CANNOT OVEREMPHASIZE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF<br />
THIS COMMENTZ O WHAT WAS ACCEPTABLE IN 1945 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN<br />
1985. 1,
4<br />
eg°<br />
I<br />
043 043<br />
THE HO<br />
11<br />
NOR&E LES AuC01N<br />
ULY<br />
AGE TOHREE986<br />
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT DOE'S METHODS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE IN<br />
2.2. 1 1986. THE 63 MILLION GALLONS OF MILITARY WASTES WHICH HAVE<br />
PILED UP AT HANFORD MUST BE DEALT WITHIN A MANNER THAT<br />
PROTECTS THE LIVES, HEALTH, AND ECONOMIC WELL-BEING OF THE<br />
PEOPLE OF OUR REGION.<br />
hFcIVEG COE-RPM<br />
JUL I A 1986 1141<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
Rc^4VEU GOc-RLL<br />
E H^1^ORN IPA LES AuC01N ^uL1?<br />
U F I<br />
PAG<br />
E OUR<br />
%NmoNISB)N<br />
/ IT']; CLEAR THAT THE GRAVITY. OF THIS PROBLEM REQUIRES THE BEST<br />
AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC. AND TECHNICAL RESOURCES. THE SAFETY AND<br />
HEALTH OF PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS OF NORTHWEST FAMILIES<br />
DEMANDS NOTHING LESS.,^WITH A HALF-LIFE OF 24,000 YEAR S,<br />
PLUTONIUM IS AN ELEMENT THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO RISE FROM ITS<br />
GRAVE AND HAUNT FUTURE GENERATIONS IN OUR WINDS AND WATERWAYS.<br />
2. 2 . 1<br />
Co<br />
THERE ARE THREE CRITERIA THAT ABSOLUTELY MUST BE MET IN<br />
2. 2 • 1 ADDRESSING THIS PROBLEM. FIRST, THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE<br />
PEOPLE AND THE REGION MUST BE THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION IN<br />
DETERMINING DISPOSAL METHODS AND PROCEDURES.<br />
SECOND, THE STANDARDS FOR DISPOSING OF MILITARY WASTES SHOULD BE<br />
-I<br />
AS STRINGENT AS THE STANDARDS FOR DISPOSING OF CIVILIAN<br />
2 .2. /<br />
WASTES. PLUTONIUM IS PLUTONIUM, WHETHER IT IS GENERATED BY A<br />
2.2 L<br />
MILITARY REACTOR OR BY A CIVILIAN REACTOR.<br />
THIRD, YOUR DRAFT <strong>EIS</strong> RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE USING SOIL AS<br />
A - MEDIUM FOR DUMPING CONTAMINATED WASTES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THIS<br />
t O PRACTICE IS NOT ALLOWED AT CIVILIAN FACILITIES, AND AS WE MEET<br />
1<br />
HERE TODAY IS BEING PHASED OUT AT THE DEPARTMENT'S SAVANNAH<br />
RIVER FLNNT IN SOUTH CAROLINA. I CANNOT IMAGINE .A SINGLE<br />
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT'S INSISTENCE THAT THIS<br />
MISBEGOTTON PRACTICE CONTINUE AT HANFORD, AND WHY IN PARTICULAR<br />
YOU SINGLE OUT THE NORTHWEST FOR SUCH SLIPSHOD TREATMENT. SO<br />
I'M DELIGHTED TO HAVE THE - APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE'S SUPPORT<br />
FOR STOPPING THIS PRACTICE. `.<br />
IF THE LESSON OF SELECTING A REPOSITORY SITE FOR DISPOSAL OF<br />
CIVILIAN NUCLEAR WASTES IS NOW TO BE APPLIED TO THE<br />
DEPARTMENT'S UECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR DISPOSAL OF 111LlTARY<br />
WASTES. THEN THE MERIT-BASED CRITERION.!SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.<br />
i- _<br />
AND THAT IMMEASURABLE ELEMENT OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE, WILL BE<br />
- SORELY MISSING./,<br />
TOO MANY YEARS OF CARELESS DISPOSAL OF WASTES IN SHALLOW MEDIUM<br />
HAVE, AND WILL CONTINUE TO RESULT IN CONTAMINATION OF<br />
—<br />
2 . 2 .<br />
G<br />
GROUNDWATER SCOURCES AND ULTIMATELY THE COLUMBIA RIVER.<br />
FAILURE TO ADDRESS THIS FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WILL RESULT IN AN 3• Z.Y.<br />
AA 1<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE /IN ADDITION.;OURS IS .A REGION OF<br />
THE COUNTRY WHERE PEOPLE. HAVE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER FOR YEARS<br />
TO R EBUI LD OUR ECONOMY AND TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ONE OF THE<br />
GREATEST WATERWAYS OF THE WORLD%TO INCREASE TRADE AND VITAL<br />
FISHERIES RESOURCES. AND THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTHWEST CONSIDER<br />
IT A SLAP IN THE FACE TO SEE THE DEPARTMENT AND THE;FEDERAL<br />
— R+r.<br />
1
€ f^ »y § ^ o<br />
BE<br />
ME<br />
`a:{<br />
HE HONORABLE LES AuC01N<br />
ULY ^O, 1988<br />
AGE IVE<br />
rte^ElVciJ DOE-RL<br />
^uL 1.a t986<br />
bmkY<br />
- WM DIVISION<br />
6D44<br />
RECEIVED DO<br />
E-RL<br />
3.2.4.1<br />
GOVERNMENT NOW STUBBORNLY ADHERING TO POLICIES WHICH COULD<br />
DEVASTATE THE COLUMBIA RIVER FOR YEARS AND YEARS TO COME.<br />
THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTHWEST DESERVE YOUR BEST ENERGIES AND<br />
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS.<br />
WORKING WITH AND FORTHE -PEOPLE I REPRESENT, I DO . NOT INTEND. TO<br />
ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO PLAY RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH<br />
- dUL1 g 1986<br />
wMOIWSION<br />
Written testimony to ac ompany hearing presentation<br />
To the US Department. of Enrgy, e 10 duly 19B6 Bonneville Power<br />
Administration Auditorium<br />
THE NATURAL RESOURCES WE'VE BEEN BLESSED WITH: RESOURCES ON<br />
WHICH OUR LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS DEPEND.<br />
Or. Leonard Palmer, gesotlet. Prof..., of Geology<br />
Portland State Uni ... city, Portland, Oregon 97207, (503) 229 3022<br />
t0<br />
Portland City Council representative delegate to the Citizens<br />
Forum to the DOE for Defense Waste Draft Environmental Impact<br />
Statement. (this is net a6 official etas ¢mont of PSW
M 044<br />
(JI<br />
C)<br />
DOE WASTE SITE SELECTION PROCESS<br />
0644<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1 4 1986<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
FUNDAMENTAL ERROR IN DECISION PROCESS SHOWN BY<br />
FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE ANISOTROPY OF HANFORD EARTH MATERIALS<br />
Persistent failure i the ticSSlon e making pran..... of the<br />
DOE regartll ng nuclear waste is dan .... to o during at least the<br />
past ten years. The fulurc t<br />
is the iuntlamental<br />
properties of earth materi al= evident from accidents<br />
and<br />
iii lea sn dispomal per;or at H nfartl and from absence of<br />
2.3. 1x12 al ter nets l nu clear waste siteaselection investigations.<br />
2 .<br />
The DOE has not r ..1.I..d the fundamental ...d to select<br />
rite sites in earth materials with the most uniform<br />
la 1 properties di basal and lowest permeability to water flow. Non uniform<br />
properties of Basalt, and sediments at Hanfortl have been ignored<br />
and compared to none of the available alternate options. The<br />
appears to hen an inability, unwillingness or failure at the<br />
ticn e making level to incorporate into the decision making<br />
process the geological expertise for cognize the physical<br />
properties of the v availableearth materials and their<br />
effects upon the h pr4.romance of the waste tlisposal to the land<br />
and water quality-<br />
. CA"L DUMPING AND SPI LL ING OF NUCLEAR WASTE<br />
The result, as described in appendix V of the Draft Et6 and<br />
in data presented by the Washington State Nurlear Waste board,<br />
leaking tanks and contaminated soils and sedimentary ground water<br />
aquifers at <strong>Hanford</strong> as fell ... i<br />
.Oyer 52 million gall... of Solid tank wants<br />
and over 27 million gallons of liquid<br />
with ar 474 million curies<br />
in 141bear<br />
ain'l. well tanks (about '403 l eaking) and 20<br />
double all tanks.<br />
3 million cu. yd. It billion gal.) of<br />
contaminatetl "over<br />
Sail<br />
With over 339,000 curies and 437 pounds of plutonium<br />
In 36 ditches and ponds; 294 cribs, trench es , french<br />
drains and 'unplanned releases' and 10 -reverse walla•<br />
Which were used to pump plutaniuw^9-240,<br />
straintilm-90 and cesium-1S! into the ground water.<br />
. Th e 216-Z-9 trench raguired treatment due to concern<br />
about 'criticality"! p. V 17-19<br />
EXISTING DEFENSE WASTE EXCEEDS COMMERCIAL WASTE VOLUME<br />
Over 622 of all high-level del .... ... te in the<br />
country is dumped at <strong>Hanford</strong> In the above conditions.<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> 'dafen... ...is in tank. would fill about 4<br />
repositories (at 70,000 yards each, with . co meralal<br />
waste storage) not including contaminated sail and<br />
water malert al a.<br />
0644<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1 4 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
Existing --defense-- -sate at <strong>Hanford</strong> overehadoes the<br />
need for a commercial repository because of the<br />
w 2.3.1.3<br />
great volume and fluid ch....car of the waste lcomparetle<br />
• to the commercial lo- volume metal-clad solid waste.) e<br />
The g i g' material unli., <strong>Hanford</strong> 1. Cat b" k<br />
Basalt 11 -- d b and flood corike.ts. The<br />
of<br />
highly variable water flow properties 2.1.1<br />
the basal_ and ...client<br />
make it n n-h....one... and u uitable for a tll sposal or<br />
repositor y ssite.<br />
Just me flow of water through swiss Cheese would be<br />
difficult to predict, a- the Columbia 111.1 Basalt and<br />
the Overlying river channel sediments have many<br />
Channels and v cations in their structure and flow<br />
properties. Rock units with the properties a<br />
diaper are more appropriate to waste disposal. with<br />
the ability toprovic. absorption no containment-<br />
Many preferable geological snits .1 at with homogeneous<br />
rocks properties, law grountl water flow rates and law value for<br />
farming or other lantl. use Granite, shale, volcanic tuff and<br />
salt p a ys been r cognizetl candidate matials, er ..salt zed<br />
stream sediment, o e cent at Hanfortl, have not been proposed as a<br />
Suitable rock material for hunt... waste disposal. Why,<br />
therefore, is the DOE_ continuin g to propose <strong>Hanford</strong> as a<br />
disposal Flt.?<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
The D<strong>EIS</strong> proposed disposal of tank waste in repository<br />
appears to be impassible due to the vo3 ume of tlefense wastes.<br />
The it ern at¢ n place" tlisposal, by c co the tanks<br />
contaminated and<br />
soils with 5 feet of fine Sail SO the only barrier<br />
to water infiltration, Is unlikel y to stay in place as<br />
functional barrier due to into and range ftres on the site and 3.5.1.100<br />
probable climate change. The c.mparaii ve costs pr .... too in the<br />
D<strong>EIS</strong> or. only for immediate transport and disposal casts "in no<br />
3.2.6.7<br />
consideration of long term risks or land use 1055¢5. No<br />
ustification or alternate Options are given, for assuming<br />
°tle dices ti on" of • the Han Portl ell. far r aft time.<br />
23.2 .S t.<br />
Because of theseriousness of the existing "defense" waste<br />
problems at Hartford and the certainly of a level or<br />
radioactive and chemical contamination of the water supply of<br />
the Columbia River valley (If•<br />
the law of gravity persists), the 3.3.2. 1<br />
People of Oregon can not support the proposed 5 fact fine-soil<br />
reap. It 15 too much to impose the m.,.rity of all nuclear<br />
rite in the country lot. the fresh water aquifers Of the<br />
worth west without clean up. Almost any state .4 the art<br />
hazardous waste tlisposal requirements would far exceed the plans<br />
presented in this D<strong>EIS</strong> for these most serious of M1azartlous risk<br />
materials.<br />
'
0 4<br />
044 4<br />
CJl<br />
1-^<br />
3<br />
of."<br />
tcE'-iVED DO&RL<br />
JUL 14 IM<br />
VIM DIVISION<br />
The failure to recognize the availability of preferable<br />
alternate dimp ... I sites antl the hi story of repeated failures at<br />
the <strong>Hanford</strong> mite tl orate failing In Judgment of the DOE<br />
2.5.5<br />
waste management process. O } glcai and engineering experti se<br />
exist within the DOE to preside much Input, at has not baen<br />
tlemonstrated.<br />
R comparable a ample of management 1 uniti to an<br />
essential technical input was evident in the recent<br />
space. shuttle di ... is , w ban eggineeri ng w logs<br />
rag ard,., the function of booster rocket seals were<br />
A groat need for revision in the nuclear waste management<br />
s of DDE with appropri.t. external indepenen d t reew vi by<br />
2.2.13 prod state, fad ... I and private agencies Is quite .obvious.<br />
OUES11ON5 FOR DOE<br />
W41<br />
hc^EIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 IM<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
A. Whvalternate sit. eel Bets.o at.A,.b dean t. find<br />
wbetA., suitable sites a ,at with lower water contaminatio n 2.31 . . 2<br />
pot ant "1 ai<br />
2. Why should present and future waste continue to be stored at 2. 1 . 1<br />
the <strong>Hanford</strong> it spite of the history failure of the site to<br />
prevent radioactive and chemical sail and water a b t ration]<br />
3. Why were the "Lafirande-Chewaukin" fault structures which<br />
trave ers the Hanf.,d site not shown on the St—t... Mep• Figure 3.2.2. 6<br />
4.59 41hy a n't the thrust faults on the <strong>Hanford</strong> site shown an<br />
the D<strong>EIS</strong> fault map?<br />
4. What will prevent direct radioactive and chemical<br />
contamination of the Columbia River aquifers and water system if' 3 . 5 . 1 .90<br />
the S foot ( 1.5 meter) 'fine oil'- of the a .site disposal Al b 1n 9<br />
were to be eroded and removed by wind, water, or other process?<br />
5. What BACKUP PROTECTION is provided for on site disposal<br />
3.5.1.90<br />
plans if the "fine sail" barrier should be removed?<br />
6. What is to prevent then spilled radioactive and<br />
Chemical tank an trench ...to free entering the ground water by<br />
gravitate anal downward movement? What other direction could they<br />
go?<br />
3.5.3 .9<br />
]. Whot .I.<br />
the<br />
chemical content of the contaminants a acieted<br />
3.1.6.1<br />
with the red a oacti see wait® and what are the potential ri sks to<br />
organisms if they leak to the environment?<br />
a. Why ware the more typical designs far waste disposal which<br />
utilize water "containment and control of potential leachate 33.5 . .2<br />
drainage not evaluated?<br />
9. What independent state, federal or private agencies are p . q T<br />
providing technical r of the D<strong>EIS</strong> proposal? Could copies of 2 J•2.9<br />
the. evaluation. be provided?<br />
lo. what intermediate alternate solutions can be presentee?<br />
These alternatives presented area extreme high cost swe tow cost<br />
possibilities with n of thetype of solutions normal for<br />
1axartlous waste disposal site selection.<br />
3.3.5. 2
.<br />
044 M<br />
LI'I<br />
N<br />
ab4q<br />
Dr. Leon ard Palmer. Auo.let. Professor of Etiology<br />
Portland State University. Portland. Oregon 9 7207. ( 503) 229 302?<br />
REVIEW.<br />
DEPARTMENT OF ENEROY<br />
DOE/<strong>EIS</strong>- <strong>0113</strong> VOLUMES 1 - 3<br />
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
DISPOSAL OF HANFORD DEFENSE HIGH-LEVEL, TRANSURANIC AND TANK<br />
WASTES<br />
HANFORD SITE. RICHLAN), WASHINGTON<br />
KARCH 19E6<br />
Major Issues Identiffedl 1./ Not an SIB<br />
2./ Error. and omi ssions in D<strong>EIS</strong><br />
3./ V.I. and Cost bet differentiated<br />
aafaas1 aaa1111anfaaflNeiiaf ff111HIfa^1f if afaMflf tie tifa<br />
1.<br />
MIS Appear. to have MISSING MR.TOR ELEMENTS sM1en [ow,ar" to the<br />
list of topics REWIRED BY THE EPA WIDELINES. A par tial list of<br />
.o.. of the major poi olons mr. as 4.12....<br />
(number o refer to paragraph. in the EPA 9.Id.1t..)<br />
1. 1.4. Should be 'not aarely justifications for proposed<br />
funding or action, rather they . • to be detailed presentations<br />
2.3.1.22<br />
the ..vlronm..t.l impact . in light of environmental<br />
censfder.tion..-<br />
IO<strong>EIS</strong> tlh... conditions and plans -umea no other<br />
options are avai Fable, no other use for site. see 3.4.1.6 0.3.40)<br />
Its 11.3. requires.. deecrfptfon . ... total mifectmd<br />
h. est t it may b..•<br />
2.3.1.2 ores (D<strong>EIS</strong> 1 k s only <strong>Hanford</strong> site, not the total<br />
aquifer or drainage system.l<br />
lc 11.6. "Point (3) requires the responsibl iv . agency to study,<br />
developand dea[rlbe appropriate alternatives to the recmmmenifed<br />
2 .3.1.2 case... of action .• in order net to f.reel.ee<br />
prematurely options which might have 1 detrimental effects.•<br />
tO<strong>EIS</strong> shows no alternate site consideration -<br />
NO COMPARISON OF ALTERNATE sit.<br />
• comparison of site us.<br />
far waste<br />
for farming, etc.<br />
• n-plac. disposal option.<br />
off-si to disposal options<br />
RECEIVED DOE.RL<br />
clean up of existing<br />
f (plutonium, strountlum-90<br />
JUL 14 IM<br />
etc.) .Pill. option.<br />
WNI DIVISION<br />
6W<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1 4 1986<br />
WK DIVISION<br />
ld 1 L " Point (4) requires and a tint of the .<br />
short-term and maintenance and enhancement of long-term<br />
nvironmental pr.ductIyit,.-<br />
Did not identity the main, environmental VeLUE9:<br />
valueo4 defense matertai<br />
(need f.. a bombs-?,.;,,<br />
va lue of Ovate, system<br />
o F iver!<br />
value<br />
2.5.6<br />
far<br />
the{ n and {<br />
negative value of , _entami meta on<br />
9e. 11.10. 'Point (5) requires description of any irreversible<br />
and irretrievable commitment of ...<br />
IDE1S has not ...r essetl thls s i .... I<br />
2.3.1.2<br />
Apparent Yin presented<br />
`f ~** tee ***µ*a»<br />
2. In addition to the major omissions. the D<strong>EIS</strong> contains<br />
flaws in contained data.<br />
Presentation It contain errare emission. in<br />
.4 - ential g.ol pgical fault data. The D<strong>EIS</strong> also<br />
fails to c .... re the p,.p.." action to es tablished procedures •1 1<br />
2 4<br />
(EPA and State r.dioactive and text. ..at. Procedures and e e 1e 1<br />
guld.lines ).Also. .assumptions of climate stability and non<br />
migration of contaminants appearto be unproven__ -<br />
2. It appears that the a tsting practices at <strong>Hanford</strong> anti<br />
the proposed procedures fall far .short of meeting the present 2 .2 1<br />
criteria used for disposal of .far . less hazartlous waste.<br />
2b D<strong>EIS</strong> page 4.11. Figure 4.5. General iz etl Geologic<br />
Structure Map of the Central Plateau (DOE 19.41<br />
Map lists."Fault" on the legend but has omitt.. all<br />
..,,ad and known fault the Hanfor d d and most others as<br />
shown -on the WPP35 (Wa h'.g[ Publ' Power Supply System, °SAR.<br />
Ftgure 2.5 3, Regional T t .i. Ele t Map)<br />
4.2 L . 1/1 V<br />
Figures in the D<strong>EIS</strong> .1. roppetl toh sow only the top<br />
of the ground water aquifer, thus exaggerating the apparent<br />
distance from the contaminant plume to the water. This is not<br />
maucurate but may be mt sl eading.<br />
2. Il loatrati nne us cuntamtnatfon .1.... ilea I.,.. V.12<br />
- V.14, Figure V.7. place •' disposal imply V.B. that V.21. no contamination S Figure 9) and has the aor proposed 'in<br />
will ..<br />
the limits of exceeded r.<br />
the pu l ••cba°aotarieed".<br />
Figure 8 clearly shows ml gr ati on of the plume and the isolated nature of the<br />
315.2.44<br />
.rose r sidul a cloud shaped contamination<br />
between 1956 1966. • The migration of the radioactive<br />
material apple s to have been by gravity flow as well s by<br />
"failed well —g`. The ontamination appears to concentrate<br />
to fine grained silty layers.
ss.<br />
M<br />
0044<br />
J.<br />
RECEIVED DQE-RL<br />
JUL 14 10<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
.2!Vcti MERL<br />
auL 1 4 1386<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
3d Thechances i i distribution of onosmanants sho po I/<br />
CF at the contami next. be migrated. 2/ that contamination has<br />
passed a w<br />
heren<br />
ontamnation a I. f ound iil<br />
n the soil<br />
(betwe ,,the p ]t t d if t . and3/that<br />
3.5.2.44 ont amenatio mov have extended to the ground water an. been<br />
vetl before retortion. It is . also paible ss that, i/ the<br />
,'char act erizatlon" data has c sid...his 3<br />
In either r<br />
ontamination s not abe proven to be<br />
contained by the "in place" design of Figure n9.<br />
35.6 . .<br />
3e Climate stability prdvidino continuation of present<br />
rid conditions,.r essential requirements for the Proposed<br />
-place" design (with no events oreater than double present<br />
rage r i.4.11). On a Iong term basis this is not likely nor<br />
er ifiable. Past climatic fluctuations a shown by palynological<br />
and marine st,.ti,r.phir data indicate major fluctuations Io the<br />
past (Holocene time).<br />
3c Risk tc. the water s`up ply of Cre non s m ,ibisw<br />
ater table.. at Boardman and potential for nf'lt t' nfr om the<br />
ncludino Portland has not been oval noted. The extremely low<br />
Columbia Raver M1as not been add ... b.d. In the event of Bull Run<br />
water prcblems Portlantlhas the option of using the newly<br />
developed Portland welt field a a back upsupply, yet the<br />
drawdown of aquifers in Portland Could result in depressed water.<br />
tables like those at Boardman. .Infiltration of Columbia River.<br />
water into the Portland well field aquifers is real possibility<br />
under that easily passible .condition.<br />
3.5.2.44<br />
y'l<br />
W<br />
Environmental Values and Coate are net differentiated<br />
The eaJor. problems with the MIS are the failure to<br />
.cognize the ..Jor anvironmemtal values, and the uncontested and<br />
2.3.1.2 untes ad easumption of continuation of the amistinq precedent for<br />
nuclear processing and disposal use of the <strong>Hanford</strong> site without<br />
site suitability comparative analyeb.<br />
3 .2.6.2<br />
p<br />
3. "Value" and " oat" are not differentiated nor<br />
valuated. Water has value but<br />
me cost<br />
(only the cast of<br />
delivery). The value of the Columbia River and the adjacent<br />
sedimentary basins to the livelihood of the region are very o eat<br />
but are not atltlressed. The value and cost of less of purity , of<br />
the Columbia River is not addressed.<br />
In this B<strong>EIS</strong>, cost is calculated in the short term as<br />
3.2.6. 8<br />
dollar. and risk to live% in the disposal process.<br />
No comparison is made of the potential long term<br />
productivity of the water and ..it of the .,.a, for a ample, a<br />
an agricultural site (and the number of lives which could be<br />
supported in the area) compared to the long term productivity and<br />
r}sk ds a hazardous and nuclear waste site.<br />
31, Comparison of the long term cultural value of the<br />
special soil and drainage conditions in the Pasco Basin Manford)<br />
to the areas less suitable for agriculture is not evaluated.<br />
3.2.6.2<br />
Eco nomicgeographyanalysee r<br />
should provide greater recognition of<br />
the comparison to other geological sites most probably much<br />
better suited for waste disposal and much less suitable for<br />
agriculture and productive land use.
"`V<br />
OEM 045<br />
-2- JUL 1 g 1986<br />
PRESENTATION TO DEPARlTFNi OP ENERGY ^ j CFlG,fr.^I.^ - V:n,orr:S!oN (145<br />
[[4S SUPPLY. OUR CUSTOMERS HAVE INVESTED OVER $30 MILLION IN THE<br />
(<br />
.PUBLIC HEARING ON-HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE'DISPOSAL DRAFT <strong>EIS</strong> '501/ DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PRECIOUS GROUNDWATER. RESOURCE.<br />
JULY 10, 1986<br />
JUL 1S 1986<br />
17x°Upii3i0N-<br />
WITH THE RECENT COMPLETION OF MAJOR PORTIONS OF OUR GROUNDWATER<br />
PROJECT, THE COMBINATION OF THE BULL RUN WATERSHED AND<br />
GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES NOW PROVIDE ACAPACITY OF APPROXIMATELY<br />
325 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY. HOWEVER, BASED ON REGIONAL<br />
3.2.4,1<br />
I AM ED TENNY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PORTLAND BUREAU OF WATER<br />
WORKS, WE ARE THE LARGEST PURVEYOR OF DRINKING WATER IN THE<br />
STATE OF OREGON, SERVING APPROXIMATELY 700,000 CUSTOMERS--ABOUT<br />
ONE-THIRD OF OREGON'S POPULATION, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT<br />
ANY PROPOSAL FOR LONG-TERM NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL AT HANFORD<br />
DUE TO THE POTENTIAL THREAT TO THE REGION'S WATER RESOURCES.<br />
HISTORICALLY, THE PORTLAND WATER SUPPLY CONSISTED OF THE BULL<br />
POPULATION PROJECTIONS INTO THE NEXT CENTURY, IT APPEARS LIKELY<br />
THAT, BY THE YEAR 2050, WATER DEMANDS FOR OUR AREA MAY BE AS<br />
HIGH AS 500 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. IT IS ONLY PRUDENT THAT<br />
THE BASIC PHILOSPHY OF MULTIPLICITY OF SOURCES BE CONTINUED<br />
IN THE FUTURE AS GROWING WATER DEMANDS NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL<br />
SUPPLY. CERTAINLY, THE COLUMBIA RIVER IS A LIKELY SOURCE TO<br />
MEET THESE FUTURE WATER NEEDS.<br />
RUN WATERSHED IN THE CASCADE MOUNTAINS. IN THE EARLY 1970s,<br />
THE WATER BUREAU EVALUATED SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES FOR INCREASING<br />
THE CAPACITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM, IN<br />
ORDER TO MEET GROWING FUTURE NEEDS AND TO PROVIDE A SUPPLY<br />
TO BACK UP OUR SURFACE WATERSHED SOURCE. AT THAT TIME, THE<br />
ADDITION OF GROUNDWATER FROM WELLFIELDS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH<br />
SHORE OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER WAS FOUND TO BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE<br />
APPROACH. THIS OPTION PROVIDED NOT ONLY A SAFE, AMPLE, RELIABLE,<br />
AND COST-EFFECTIVE WATER SUPPLY BUT ALSO PROVIDED A SECONDARY<br />
SUPPLY WHICH WAS TOTALLY INDEPENDENT OF THE EXISTING BULL RUN<br />
ALTHOUGH. WATER DEMANDS . BEYOND THE YEAR 2050 HAVE NOT BEEN<br />
PROJECTED, IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT TREATED COLUMBIA<br />
RIVER WATER WILL BE A NEEDED SOURCE OF DOM'_STIC DRINKING WATER<br />
WITHIN THE ACTIVE LIFETIME OF THE WASTES TO BE STORED AT HANFORD.<br />
CONTAMINATION OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BY DEFENSE WASTES LEAKING<br />
FROM HANFORD's UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS WOULD, AT BEST,<br />
FORECLOSE THE OPTION OF USING THE COLUMBIA RIVER AS A POTENTIAL<br />
FUTURE SUPPLY. BUT COULD ALSO THREATEN THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY<br />
OF THE EXISTING GROUNDWATER SUPPLY BECAUSE OF POSSIBLE INFLUENCES<br />
FROM THE COLUMBIA RIVER.<br />
3.2.4.1
am<br />
UK<br />
UT<br />
2.3.2.9<br />
2.2.7<br />
2.1.1<br />
REGLIVEL. DOC>:«<br />
3 JUL 14 TH;S<br />
IN LIGHT OF THE SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL THREAT THAT NUCLEAR WASTE<br />
DISPOSAL POSES TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND PARTICULARLY TO THE WATER<br />
RESOURCES. DOWNSTREAM OF THE HANFORD SITE, IT SEEMS ONLY<br />
REASONABLE THAT DOE FUND AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO AREAS THAT MAY BE IMPACTED<br />
BY THE FACILITY WITHIN THE FUTURE LIFE OF THE WASTES. EXISTING<br />
WATER WORKS FACILITIES AND FUTURE. WATER NEEDS OF THE PORTLAND<br />
METROPOLITAN AREA MUST BE MADE A PART OF SUCH RESEARCH. YOU<br />
CAN BE ASSURED OF OUR FULL COOPERATION IN SUCH A PROJECT, SINCE<br />
WE ARE ANXIOUS TO BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN YOUR ONGOING<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY PROCESS.'<br />
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BRIEFLY COMMENT THAT WHATEVER METHOD OF<br />
DISPOSAL IS SELECTED, BE IT AT HANFORD OR ANY OTHER LOCATION,<br />
THE DISPOSAL FACILITY MUST CERTAINLY ADHERE TO CIVILIAN STANDARDS<br />
FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL. IT IS DISTRESSING TO KNOW THAT<br />
PAST WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES AT HANFORD HAVE RESULTED IN<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION THAT SIMPLY WOULD. NOT BE TOLERATED<br />
BY PRIVATE INDUSTRY. IN ADDITION, ALTHOUGH I WILL NOT CLAIM<br />
TO BE AN EXPERT ON GEOLOGY OR HAZARDOUS WASTE 01SPOSAL, IT<br />
APPEARS TO BE VERY UNWISE TO ATTEMPT TO STORE THESE WASTES<br />
IN THE POROUS AND COMPLEX GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS OF THE HANFORD<br />
AREA. GIVEN THE LIQUID NATURE OF THE WASTES IN QUESTION, THEIR<br />
EXTREMELY LONG ACTIVE LIVES, AND THE PROPENSITY OF LIQUIDS<br />
TO FLOW DOWNHILL, IT WOULD NOT BE SURPRISING TO FIND THAT AT<br />
SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE, THESE MATERIALS ARE ESCAPING FROM<br />
eECEiv^c. _^^..^<br />
JUL 1e ESS<br />
WA' R::'lai'J::<br />
THE HANFORD SITE, IT SEEMS THAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES{ SUCH AS<br />
A SITE WITH LESS POROUS AND MORE PREDICTABLE GEOLOGY OR<br />
SOLIDIFICATION OF THE WASTE, COULD OFFER A FAR GREATER DEGREE<br />
'2< 1.1<br />
OF LONG-TERM CONTAINMENT AND STABILITY. THUS, WE ENCOURAGE<br />
YOU TO CONSIDER A WIDER RANGE OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS THAN HAS 3.3.5.2<br />
BEEN CONSIDERED TO DATE.<br />
IN SUMMARY, THE PORTLAND WATER BUREAU IS STRONGLY COMMITTED<br />
TO PRESERVATION OF THE REGION'S VARIED AND COMPLEX WATER<br />
RESOURCES, THE COLUMBIA RIVER SYSTEM IS THE HEART OF OUR<br />
REGION'S WATER RESOURCE. THE DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES AT<br />
HANFORD APPEARS TO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PERMANENTLY<br />
THE REGION'S MOST VALUABLE WATER RESOURCES. NUCLEAR<br />
CONTAMINATION OF THE COLUMBIA RIVCR WOULD NOT ONLY LIMIT<br />
AVAILABLE OPTIONS FOR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY SOURCES FOR THE y<br />
3.2.4.1<br />
PORTLAND AREA, BUT MAY ALSO THREATEN THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY<br />
OF EXISTING WATER SUPPLIES WHICH ARE INFLUENCED BY THE RIVER.<br />
WE WOULD BE .ESPECIALLY PLEASED TO WORK IN COOPERATION WITH<br />
DOE TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC<br />
IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES DOWNSTREAM OF THE HANFORD SITE.<br />
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY.<br />
mo<br />
PORTLAND. OREGON<br />
..y •axu<br />
Edward Tw,<br />
bnum'wx<br />
1!<br />
IIA SN'. YIi AVm.e qmT,<br />
py U V p geyn 9]dli-1416 ISNI TE ]i@
MON 1<br />
MM<br />
I7br Oregon: Neil<br />
Contact: Virginia Burdick<br />
RECEIVED- DOE-RL<br />
July 10, 1986 JUL 14 10 D64^<br />
FOR IMMEDIATE RELE"Id DIVISION<br />
Cregg Kantor<br />
Ph...:<br />
2 9aoo 4s2 asa6<br />
colmchmidc :aid a mini... n.. truant of $40 million for<br />
design, engineering and preliminary construction of such a<br />
facility would be a sign of good faith on the part of the US ODE.<br />
-30-.<br />
(.T1<br />
Dl<br />
NEIL COLDSCHMIOT DEMANDS IMMEDIATE COMMITMENT TO HANFORD CLEANUP<br />
Oregon gubernatorial candidate Nail G ld hmldt called today<br />
for a atringenx..ca to rise—, plea at <strong>Hanford</strong> that would begin in<br />
1987, not 1994.<br />
Coldseb.idt's testimony v • delivered by Mildred Schwab,<br />
Co-chair of the Neil Coldanhvidt for Covernor Multnomah County<br />
Committee, at a public hearing, held by the United State.<br />
Department of Energy (US DOE) on its draft environmental impact<br />
statement (D<strong>EIS</strong>). The D<strong>EIS</strong> examines various alternatives for<br />
cleaning up-,military rant&& stored for she past 40 years at<br />
Bedford.<br />
2 .2 1<br />
In his t es timony, Cold&chmidt demanded a cleanup plan that<br />
.told include a umber of US DOE c ..live.[.. He asked that the<br />
cleanup plan (1) not add to the waste burden borne by the Columbia<br />
2. 2. River and surrounding soil for the pant 40 years; (2) comply with<br />
the same federal standards for private sector waste m nagems<br />
s •^y and (3) be initiated in 1987 an d net be allowed to 'become lost<br />
G id the bovelaof the U5 DOE.`<br />
2. q<br />
n<br />
Geld.eh.ldt emitI.I..d the US DOE for being vague nn the mead<br />
to ....ly with federal environmental-law I. dispel ing of defense<br />
consider military high-level w any differently in<br />
terms of risk than commercial high-level was t would be the height<br />
of c.C9Laf.tenty, • he said.<br />
2.4 . 1 . 1 ran tea: 'risk<br />
2 . 2 . 1<br />
Celdechmidt alas nim.a..d the need for the US DOE x<br />
Implement a cleanup plan prior to a 1994 date discussed In the<br />
D<strong>EIS</strong>. -The time for action 3s now. AS your own (US DOE) 1900<br />
ant of long-term risks clearly warns: ' . It-may be more<br />
difficult, dangerous, and costly , to remove the mart& in the future<br />
than it I. now.<br />
•TO alleviate amen.... and to eamoatr.te good faith, w ,<br />
amt me n a FSSCal u<br />
Year 1988 budget request for a pilot <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
3.1.8.0 Near. Vitrification Plant.- a s id. The Vitrification<br />
p Tons ie n satry to prepare the raato no matter which disposal<br />
al ternative Is picked.<br />
-<br />
REC— G.<br />
` J I 1&.1986<br />
l<br />
- x ,sluti c 46<br />
Neil Gold.h.id , Am Go,enow Comeduee<br />
1220 EVE Mmueow, Room US - Portland.. Logan 9 7105'<br />
2954545(NeH)- Cum& Ponl&nd.1114W5 9a6
sm<br />
UI<br />
6641.<br />
RECENEU pUE-RL<br />
IUL 14 1986<br />
WM E)IVISION<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1? 1986<br />
I appreciate the opportunity to present my views on th6VUEMISION<br />
to clean up the existing defense wastes at <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong>'s fate as a permanent nuclear waste dump and the<br />
final decision on cleaning-up defense wastes will affect<br />
Oregonians for generations to coma.<br />
6ra4<br />
Ln<br />
V<br />
TESTIMONY OF<br />
NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT<br />
On The<br />
Cleanup of Military Wastes<br />
At <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
July 10, 1986<br />
As you have heard. throughout the day, Oregonians cherish<br />
action. over Verde. With the completion of the environmental<br />
impact statement, we expect the Department of Energy<br />
to kick into high gear to implement a cleanup plan that 2.2.1<br />
provides the moat effective long-term protection of public<br />
health, livelihoods, and the environment.<br />
We Want see work plans, not calls for more research; we<br />
Want line-item budget. for clean-up facilities, not proposals<br />
for further studies; we want the production of paper 2 . 20.1<br />
to stop and the cleanup of waste to begin. For a region<br />
that has, in the name of national security, borne the risk<br />
of improperly stored military wastes for forty years, that<br />
is not too much to ask.<br />
As a neighbor and a. the agency responsible for the cleanup<br />
of military waste, the department should understand<br />
Oregonians' anxiety about the threat to public health, to 3,2.4.1<br />
livelihood, and to the environment posed by military waste.<br />
We also expect the department to share our deep commitment<br />
to the long-term protection of those value..<br />
We expect the department's recommended cleanup plan and<br />
accompanying budget. to be based on what will beet serve<br />
Portland-VancouVer, not Gramm-Rudman.. If that 1s not the<br />
case, then Oregonian., other Northwest residents, and their<br />
elected officials will take steps to ensure that protection 2. 2 , 1<br />
is based on concern for public health and the envirowient<br />
not on political expediency.<br />
G.uus 1
o<br />
M<br />
M<br />
RECEIVED DOERL<br />
JUL 1 d 1986<br />
2.2.1<br />
2.2.7<br />
In framing a stringent cleanup plan, He seek a commitment<br />
from the department:<br />
o To stop adding to the burden already borne by the<br />
Columbia River and the soil from 40 years of highlevel<br />
defense waste disposal.<br />
o To operate a defense waste management plan in<br />
compliance with the same federal standard. that<br />
G govern private sector waste management practices.<br />
o To prevent the defense waste cleanup plan from<br />
disappearing into the bureaucracy after these<br />
2.2.9 hearings and to provide a tangible FY88 budget<br />
commitment to cleanup, not further containment, of<br />
high-level wastes.<br />
Specific comments on how the department should meet its<br />
commitment follow.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
1. TO STOP ADDING. TO THE BURDEN ALREADY BORNE BY THE WM DIVISION<br />
COLOMBIA RIVER AND TO THE SOIL FROM 40 YEARS OF BIGH- t041,<br />
.LEVEL DEFENSE WASTE DISPOSAL<br />
No "as-is^ snzfece disposal of high-level waste at alndge 3.3.4.1<br />
should be allowed. ..Toward that end, the department most<br />
atop using an arbitrary definition of.high-level military<br />
waste. It fosters . public mistrust when the department<br />
defines high-level. military waste according to the proaess<br />
it comes from rather than using EPA's definition based on<br />
concentrations, or same. other objective criterion, such as<br />
energy emitted per gram. The Nuclear. Waste Policy Act<br />
mandate for deep geologic disposal of all conmercial high-<br />
level waste (HLW) mu at apply equally to defense waste.<br />
Therefore, the only cleanup vptiam consistent with the<br />
.intent Of Congress is the cleanup and deep geologic disposal<br />
of all military high-level wastes and sludges now in nearsurface<br />
tanks and in trenches.<br />
To consider military high-level waste any differently in<br />
2.2.7<br />
terms Of risk than commercial high-level. waste would be the 22 . . 7<br />
height of incvnsistancy. Where is the wisdom in spending<br />
billions of dollars to. build .permanent repository some<br />
3000 feet underground, while leaving equally hazardous<br />
military waste in tanks and trenches a .tone's throw from<br />
the Columbia River.<br />
L L<br />
Reliance on grouting (mixing waste with concrete) of highlevel<br />
wastes followed by disposal in shallow burial pits is<br />
3.1.8.1<br />
of questionable long-term protection of public health and<br />
the environment. The<br />
oussnSavannah River Plant<br />
aste management plan final <strong>EIS</strong> estimates grouting will<br />
release into the soil 30 times morn plutonium 238, 20 mil-.<br />
lion times more iodine 129, and 6 million times more technation<br />
99 than all planned routine discharges from Savannah<br />
River's two reprocessing facilities. from 1954 to 1976.-<br />
G.005 2<br />
G.005 3
4 2<br />
Ef.<br />
•.<br />
B91<br />
Ln<br />
W<br />
3.3.2.2<br />
3 .3.2.2<br />
2.4.1.9<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
Given the risks from grouting of high-level wastes, It is<br />
Puzzling why no mention of calcination of high-level wastes<br />
is mentioned anywhere by the department as a viable cleanup<br />
option. By converting wastes to Powder,-calcinated wastes<br />
a e ..11-suited to gI ... ification for deep geologic burial.<br />
It also eliminates the need for grouting of ...too.<br />
True, calcination is a better investment as a front-end<br />
production change; I..., to eliminate the future production<br />
of liquid waeten Nat now and up t.red I. tanks and<br />
trenches. But its Potential application to existing inplace<br />
waste has been totally neglected in the D<strong>EIS</strong>. Such a<br />
unique and proven disposal alternative deserves serious<br />
examination-<br />
2. TO OPERATE A DEFENSE WASTE MANAGEMENT-PLAN IN COM-<br />
PLIANCE WITH THE SAME FEDERAL STANDARDS THAT GOVERN<br />
PRIVATE SECTOR WASTE. MANAGHMENT PRACTICES<br />
Double standards are indefensible. The nation's cradleto-grave<br />
hazardous waste protection. law--the Resource.Conservation<br />
and Recovery Act, or RCRA--applies to federal<br />
agency waste management and disposal practice..<br />
Statements in the D<strong>EIS</strong> on compliance with federal law are<br />
vague and conflicting. The D<strong>EIS</strong> does not address the requirements<br />
and the intent of federal environmental law. My<br />
attempt to seek exemptions of defense wastes in matter. of<br />
environmental safety, measured in geologic time, cannot be<br />
justified.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
The fact that high-level military waste is indeed a mixture<br />
of hazardous and radioactive materials means that, under<br />
RCRA regulations, landfilling or shallow pond disposal is<br />
prohibited.<br />
What we first used from the Department of Energy I. a ..hedole<br />
to bring current waste disposal practices into rem<br />
pliance with EPA and Washington state health and safety<br />
standards. Concurrently, the department must fully inventory<br />
and identify hazards of waste that has been dumped in<br />
soil over the past 40 years, Knowing what is there, and how<br />
much, is essential to its proper cleanup.<br />
The department must commit to a date to Atop routine dumping<br />
into the soil of low and intermediate toxic and radioactive<br />
Waste liquids from POREK, the <strong>Hanford</strong> N-Reactor and the<br />
high-level waste tank farms. Such disposal practice I.<br />
outmoded and dangerous. The department. has entered into a<br />
Memorandum of Understanding with South Carolina to stop such<br />
.oil dumping by 1988. A similier agreement fa sought by<br />
Washington state. To date, the department has been<br />
reluctant to negotiate.<br />
Certainly, the department's. FY87 budget request of $1.6<br />
million for two more surface disposal ponds is not a sign of<br />
a commitment to safe and sound disposal of high-level.<br />
waeten.<br />
1. TO PREVENT THE DEFENSE WASTE CLEANUP PLAN FROM DIS-<br />
APPEARING INTO THE BUREAUCRACY AFTER THESE HEARINGS.<br />
TO PROVIDE A TANGIBLE FYBB BUDGET COMMITMENT TO<br />
CLEANUP, NOT FURTHER CONTAINMENT.<br />
2.4.1.9<br />
2 .4.1.1<br />
3 .1.1.1<br />
2.2.10<br />
2.5.5<br />
JUL 14 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
We want a eastern of good faith from the department . that a<br />
cleanup plan will be implemented and funded prior to the<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
G.005 4<br />
0.005 5 JUL 14 1986<br />
WM DIVISION
D y<br />
M<br />
C oLf6<br />
O<br />
1994 date discussed in the D<strong>EIS</strong>, and that the deep geologic<br />
1<br />
3 .3.1.1 disposal option for high-level waste will be pursued in<br />
earnest.<br />
The time for action is now. AsDOE / 9 own 1980 assessment of<br />
long-sere risk. clearly warns: m if eventual retrieval (from<br />
tanks) of the waste for permament disposal is undertaken,<br />
the cost could well rise with the pa..age of years...Tbus,<br />
O<br />
2 . 2.1 it may be more diYEieult, dangerous, and costiv to remove<br />
the waste in the future than it is now." (1)<br />
3.3.1.2<br />
The department's FY87 defense nuclear waste construction<br />
budget request of just under 119<br />
scarcely<br />
compares<br />
with the department's $153 million construction budget<br />
request at Savannah River. The department'. <strong>Hanford</strong> menstruction<br />
budget I. "mainly to demonstrate 1n-place disposal<br />
of compromised single-shell HLW tanks. m (2) Statements like<br />
this are another sign that the department's intentions are<br />
already in place.<br />
To alleviate our concern. and to demonstrate good faith, we<br />
- want to ... a FY88 budget request for a pilot <strong>Hanford</strong> Waste<br />
p Vitrification Plant (HWVP). Since a vitrification plant is<br />
an essential component of both the D<strong>EIS</strong> reference alternap<br />
3 ( 1 8 . J tive and the D<strong>EIS</strong> repository :alternative--the department<br />
would be prudent to begin construction of a pilot facility<br />
in 1987. The Northwest will not tolerate a 30-yeas struggle<br />
to fund such a facility as the state of South. Carolina was<br />
compelled to do.<br />
A minimum commitment of $40 million for design, engineering,<br />
and preliminary construction of a vitrification plant would<br />
provide a necessary sign of good faith by the department.<br />
3.1.8.9<br />
The plant'. similiariti.. be the existing Savannah River<br />
vitrification plant allow for an expedited construction<br />
schedule.<br />
6.005 6<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 1986<br />
WMDIV(S(o t4<br />
664b<br />
Convetaely, to fund a grouting facility for surface disposal<br />
rather than a vitrification plant would be a clear indication<br />
. that the department is wadded to in-place. near-surface<br />
2.2.1<br />
disposal. it would offer a clear sign that coat .... iderations<br />
are placed above the long-term protection of public<br />
health and the environment in the department'. plane.<br />
Finally, we . seek a pledge from the department to stick to.<br />
its commitment to produce a final <strong>EIS</strong> by mid-1987. We do<br />
not want to see the department's. doors elan shut after a 2 . 2 . 1<br />
brief exposure to public scrutiny. The 'momentum for cleanup L<br />
action and the public expectation for such are-simply too<br />
great to become lost in the bowels of the DS Department of<br />
Energy. Porty years is long enough to wait..<br />
REFERENCES<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1 a 19M<br />
WM DIVISION 604&<br />
1. Rockwell Sanford Operation., He A..es.ment of the Risks<br />
As...I.ed With Continued Stoxaa wig ^v.T -Ie H<br />
in Single-She Tan a at Hanfor , May 980.<br />
2. U.S. Department of Energy, COn r...'onal Hud et<br />
Ae nest Atomic Defense A...— ee n vo ..I, pp. 563<br />
DOL/MA-00 5'rl 4,Fe ruaxy 1386.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 pas<br />
o46<br />
WM DIVISION
ME 04°7<br />
TESTIMONY ON HANFORD N-WASTE y/li/eB<br />
poy7<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 141986<br />
BARBARA LA MOHTiCELLA WM DIVISION<br />
4047<br />
HAMM N-WASTE TESTIMONY<br />
BARBARA LA MORTICELLA<br />
ooY.<br />
RECEIVEu DOE-RL<br />
JUL 141986<br />
July 11, 1984VMDIVISION<br />
PAGE 2 W47<br />
Cn<br />
A few years ago,. Tread in the Oregonian that radioactive<br />
rabbit droppings and pocket gopher based badbeen found 10<br />
miles from the <strong>Hanford</strong> site, and a radioactive eagle's<br />
.eat 25 miles from the site. Parts of a livin g system<br />
cannot be isolated from other parts. Although Chernobyl<br />
is very far away from Portland, rainwater in Portland was<br />
one of the first places in the U.S. where radiation from<br />
Chernobyl was measured:,<br />
It is appropriate that radiation showed up in this region<br />
first, for the Northwest has already played a . .large role<br />
in this country's nuclear. development..<br />
QJ<br />
One legacy of that role is the <strong>Hanford</strong> N-Plant, the<br />
oldest plant is the country. Like Chernobyl, it is a<br />
41<br />
graphite reactor. But while Chernob yl did have a contain-<br />
'N meat building, <strong>Hanford</strong> has none, and is built to withstand<br />
only 1/5 as much pressure as the Chernobyl pia twas. l The<br />
Ranford design is obsolete and dangerous, butKOORtiuues''tb<br />
.peratfec-<br />
M^<br />
4 The pur.. plutonium plant is another legacy,.... of<br />
the major sources of plut.niem for U.S. nuclear bombs.<br />
Willi am Lawless, a former engineer and waste manager foe<br />
U.S. Department of Energy, says that the soil of the Danford<br />
reservation poses the most serious plutonium contmina-<br />
Lion problem ofany sit e. In the nation. 2 Today the Puiex<br />
O pi pt routinely dischar ges about 7.5 time. more plutonium<br />
(:1 than the infamous Rocky Plants plutonium pla.t. 3 The soil<br />
throughout the <strong>Hanford</strong> site contains more plutonium per<br />
C O square acre, 84 mca., than the city of Nagasaki, lees than<br />
a mile from ground zero, immediately after it was bombed.<br />
And plutonium levels in the soil in the cities of Richland<br />
and Sunnyside approach Nagasaki's.4<br />
A Pew years ago, Russia - stopped releasing the etatistiew<br />
for life expectancy and infant. mortality, for those<br />
figures had begun worsening. Last year when Dr. Carl<br />
Johnson, one of the fathers of .nuclear ..fence, was in Portland,<br />
I asked him what seams a. wild question-- whether it<br />
was possible that the drop in Soviet life expectancy could<br />
be related to the accident at Kyshtym. He replied that yea,<br />
it was passible. Premature ag ing is one of the little-known<br />
side effects of radiation exposure that have been revealed<br />
I. a few studies which were abruptly discontinued, end then<br />
buried from public view. 10-20 years would be about the<br />
right amount of time for this side effect to begin to<br />
surface.<br />
The U.S.S.R. has no public hearings like this one, no<br />
lengthy intervention processes of the kinds which the U.S.<br />
aucle ar industry bemoans. Russia, then, Ys two major public<br />
disasters ahead of us. But we have our potential Chernobyl,<br />
at <strong>Hanford</strong>. We have or potential Kyshtym, at <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
We also have a free press. A few months a go, the following<br />
story app..f.d in the Oregonian:<br />
I. the late 40 1 s; the goverment was trying to devise<br />
ways to measure radioactive fallout in the Soviet Union<br />
in order to monitor their nvelse, blasts. Measuring the<br />
radioactive dust in the holes of Russian bowling balls was<br />
Put forth was one option. 5,5000 curies of 1-I31, a thousand<br />
times the contamination released during the Three-Mile<br />
Island accident, were purposely discharged into the air<br />
of the Northwest to test U.S. measuring devices. y Presumably<br />
the plan was for undercover agents to haunt the howling<br />
alleys in Richland Spokane and Seattle, furtively holding<br />
geiger counters over .bowling bells. This plan was abandoned<br />
who p .....a. recollected that the Russians do out bowl,<br />
0<br />
O<br />
0<br />
3CID<br />
Q<br />
fD<br />
C+<br />
D<br />
d<br />
There I. another parallel. The U.S.S.R. hoe had not<br />
one, b'dt two major nuclear accidents: at Chernobyl, and<br />
One in 1958 at a remote nuclear waste site sad plutonium<br />
plant „, xvshtmn. in the Orel Mountains. At Kyshtym, as at<br />
several huudreg thousand square all.. of land permanently<br />
uninhabitable. And a Russian defector who had been an<br />
en gi near supervising construction at Kyshtym told Science<br />
Magazine in '83 that that plant was an exact, pipe-by-pipe<br />
copy of the acres pinnt.6 Net Pure. goes on, day after<br />
day, producing weapons-grade plutonium.<br />
The story would be funny, except that that radiation<br />
really was released over the Northwest. We don't know<br />
where the government finally chose to measure it: on cars<br />
in parking lots, in Playgrounds, on cow's udders or horse 'e<br />
manes. And we don't knew what the health effects of this<br />
experiment were sad 'are, bananas . pull-scale, independent<br />
health study hasnever been funded.<br />
The story isn't funny, either, because it still goes<br />
on. More than 40 lbs.. of pure plutonium were scheduled to<br />
go up in the next rocket launch after Challenger, enough to
04 7 am<br />
LT<br />
N<br />
0047<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14<br />
HANFORD N-WASTE TESTIMONY JULY 11, 18%MDFVISION<br />
tYM 064<br />
BARBARA LA MORTICBL PAGE 3<br />
contaminate the entire planst. 8 And today we ar e. here to<br />
address 'a plan to ship all of the nuclear waste in the<br />
3.4.2.2 ...try, ou 85% of which is produced east of the Mississippi<br />
River, by truck and by train across the continent to bring<br />
- it to <strong>Hanford</strong>, and to deposit it on the banks of our region`s<br />
most vital 'waterway; to endanger the river, to endanger<br />
the people of the Nort4.t ad to ..danger every state in<br />
the union those tracks ad th se trains P a.. through. ^fFPn<br />
Tlev
E^g ^<br />
d<br />
F<br />
k 1 f5 £"3<br />
U:, 049<br />
M<br />
W<br />
2.<br />
1 . 1<br />
00q'6<br />
17-1-^^<br />
r<br />
OREGON STATE PUBLIC INTERESTRESEARLCHGGROOUUP<br />
(/^^<br />
l0 1<br />
^<br />
(Q dy ®Sp,RV ^y ^yl<br />
POrt en 222 gEW201 97<br />
[ ^J 1503) OR<br />
Statement Of Be'. L. Laumann<br />
before the<br />
I'm Rochelle Cashdan, an anthzop p logi.t from Portland. .peaking -to. myvel£.<br />
United State. Oepartment of Energy<br />
I'va lived near the Columbia of its tributaries for my 22 year. in the<br />
Public Hearing - Portland. Oregon<br />
Northwest.<br />
hFC-Ivtu DOERL<br />
July 10, 1986<br />
The Columbia Rlti I basin one of the eat rites bands.<br />
WM 14 1986<br />
6 E49<br />
OE the world. It M1aa been is one for people for thousands of Fears. -<br />
WMOIYISION -<br />
I don't want to see nuclear waste dumped .nywher. near it.<br />
Good evening. I would like to chunk the U.B. Department<br />
It'. t's not good £oz people. (^//^J '^^ ,l. /' rf^^<br />
CRU^., y 1 t ' D ,<br />
of Energy for the 0poortunity to submit this statement. My name<br />
Rochelle Caehdan<br />
3529 S. B. Yamhlll is Sara Laumann. I am the Staff Attorney for the Oregon State<br />
Portland 92214<br />
Public Interest Research Group. GRPIRG 1. Oregon's Oldest and<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 "<br />
largest environmental and consumer organisation with over 30,000<br />
citizen members and over 35,000 student members statewide.<br />
There are two points I would like to cover thin evening,<br />
First, there is a lack of opportunity for Oregonians and the<br />
2.4.1.5<br />
WM DIVISION state of Oregon to participate in the decision-making process<br />
involving <strong>Hanford</strong>; and second, there are various issue. involving<br />
6mg the transportation of high level radioactive waste. through<br />
3.4.2.2<br />
Oregon that have not received adequate consideration.<br />
OSPIRU DEMANDS THAT OREGON BE GIVEN AFFECTED STATE STATUS<br />
Since the Hartford Reservation is only 30 miles from the<br />
Oregon border. there are arguably more im pact. on Oregon than<br />
Washington. The potential environmental and health effects<br />
from the radioactivity at <strong>Hanford</strong> will not respect state borders.<br />
In the Draft <strong>EIS</strong>, the DOE states that "Downstream users of the<br />
Columbia River would incur at most one health effect associated<br />
3. 2.4. 1<br />
with the disposal of waste over 10,000.yp.r.." We, citizens. n of J
M1`<br />
4 s 7 4 a 4<br />
_<br />
043 043<br />
2.4.1.5<br />
J . L 2<br />
0049<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
Oregon, are those downstream users. Further, OSPIRG believes<br />
JUL 1410<br />
WMDIVISION 660<br />
the statement made by the DOE inaccurately represents the scope<br />
of the problem.<br />
By inviting us to testify today, the DOE has<br />
demonstrated that Oregonians should have input into the<br />
decision-making process. Although this is agood first step,<br />
each more needs to be done. Oregon should be givenaffected<br />
state status. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. the DOE is<br />
required to consider the "regional" impacts of locating the<br />
proposed repository at such a site. Certainly the state of<br />
Oregon falls within the region. There are and will continue to<br />
be impacts to Oregon in the way of health, safety, welfare and<br />
the environment. My decision involving <strong>Hanford</strong> most consider<br />
these impact. to Oregon.. Financial resources .should be given to<br />
2 . 3 8 Oregon to study these impacts: Additionally, more hearings should<br />
be held througbout the states particularly in those cities along<br />
the transportation routes to and from <strong>Hanford</strong> (I-Ha and 1-5) and<br />
also those cities along the Columbia River:<br />
9SPIRG DENANDS THAT THE DOE SERIOUSLY CONSIDER<br />
THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THE TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE<br />
Currently there are 5 Shipments per day of radioactive<br />
waste traveling across Oregon highways. If <strong>Hanford</strong> is Selected<br />
as the repository, this number will increase to 17 shipments per<br />
day or over 6,000 shipments a year. Additionally, if the defense w<br />
REu°IVCJ DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 1986<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
currently stored at <strong>Hanford</strong> is shipped to another site, the<br />
number of shipments traveling along Oregon's highways will again,<br />
dramatically increase.<br />
In the Draft DIE, the DOE has presented numbers,<br />
intricate computer models, complicated equations and<br />
sophisticated language, this all boiling down to the fact that<br />
shipments will be transported to or from <strong>Hanford</strong> through Oregon.<br />
It will only be a matter of time before a major accident occurs.<br />
The DOE states in the Draft <strong>EIS</strong> that there have only been 30<br />
qp<br />
3.4. 2.22<br />
accidents per year which have involved radioactive materials.<br />
3.4.2.2-<br />
Although this may be true, this does not take into consideration<br />
that there will be significantly more shipments on our highways<br />
an the future. Additionally, even though 30 accidents may seem<br />
like a low number<br />
...it takes only one accident to cause devastating damage. Just<br />
look at what happened with just "one accident in the Soviet<br />
Onion.<br />
In the Draft EIE, the DOE lays Out the method to be<br />
used to teat containers in which the radioactive waste will be<br />
Shipped. The report states that "These test environments are<br />
designed to simulate very Severe transport accidents." The report<br />
goes on to say that the conditions are equivalent to or more<br />
severe than actual conditions to be encountered. In the drop<br />
test, a container is dropped from 29 feet. Certainlyd there are<br />
P ortions . of the highways in which a container could fall more<br />
3.4.2.22<br />
3.4.3.8<br />
3.4.2.12<br />
-2_
c<br />
049 049<br />
0Cn<br />
0040<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JU^L<br />
141906<br />
conY<br />
1510<br />
a 30<br />
^11 1<br />
.tfian 29 feet. The thermal test - testa the tN^Ytta<br />
minute fire at 800 degreea Celsius. This is inadequate because<br />
certain fuels used in transportation burn at over 1000 degrees<br />
Celsius. In the water-immersion teat, the container is in water<br />
for only 8 hour , . One can imagine circumstances in which a<br />
3.4.2. 12 contains, filled with radioactive waste remains in the water for<br />
more than 8 hours. The testa on the containers are inadequate<br />
and do not truly reflect the very se<br />
are transportation accidents<br />
that they are designed to simulate. The containers will not<br />
protect the safety and welfare of citizens nor the environment.<br />
It is essential that those responding to an accident<br />
involving radioactive waste be prepared for the worst case<br />
3 .4.2.24 scenario. OSPIRG urges the DOE to allocate financial resources<br />
3 .4.2.2<br />
to provide for adequate response along the potential<br />
transportation routes. In the Draft <strong>EIS</strong>, the DOE acknowledges<br />
that the ultimate responsibility for emergency response planning<br />
lies_ with the state and local governments. OSPIRG agrees that<br />
this is where the planning should occur. However, most of Oregon's<br />
'first responders' do not have the necessary equipment, training,<br />
and planning to adequately respond in the event of an incident.<br />
In conclusion, the DOE proposes to increase radioactive<br />
waste shipments through Oregon. Some of those shipments will be<br />
traveling only a short distance from this auditorium. Thin<br />
increase will endanger our health, our safety, and our<br />
- environment. 'Until Oregon gains affected state status and until<br />
RECEIVED MERL<br />
4UL 141986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
the DOE adequately considers all of the impacts from<br />
transporting these radioactive wastes, reasoned decision making<br />
3.4.2.2<br />
can not owur.<br />
_q_<br />
-5_
050 1<br />
En<br />
3 . LaY /i e 1<br />
_ July 10,1986<br />
In t to Draft E.I.S. Coves.1aQ Han£oad as candidate site for xedioactive caste<br />
c[orage.<br />
To save time, I'm got" to talk about only one gripe, People Fawn'[<br />
been told vho will be endaagemd sh ou ld theta be leaks at Handouts. The<br />
Dtafa E.I.S. does say, quote -These is no oitbdcawl of grwwdwetes from<br />
beneath the <strong>Hanford</strong> St. for purpoees of supplying any. community .vatex systems^.<br />
(p.4.21)<br />
Goodie. People liviyr ..by evidently a ch cautious. gut, if then 4exe<br />
a leak, and if radioactivity Net into water, mtl if th e outer mo un d -<br />
who would be eadangetedl<br />
This is a vital question. Me People who would be endaoge cad are, at<br />
Fewness population counts, about 100,000 people living in the Portland<br />
met[o area, whose current votes sou include deep walla close to the<br />
Students Ri ve s, dowetrtam from <strong>Hanford</strong>. Costainly tadioactivity Settled<br />
into no Columbia could at into [beta we lls. He don't kvov -he' the<br />
3.2.3.6<br />
aquifers Exact, Haufnrd a., . but there's m season to doubt that they might<br />
.2.4.1. 5<br />
connect with Portland's wall..<br />
.She m n Poxclandexe and Gradual. at hide should know thin. i<br />
that Men they would insist on Sieges hewing a veto poxes. like Nanlu,wthe State<br />
has, should Haeford be selected as the xepocitory site.<br />
But, they haven't bee. told. Cong re ss is letting only waebiogton haun<br />
a. ve to po we r, although may mom people who pave a direct cacnsere as fax<br />
eve these drinking waste is concermad, live is omgon.<br />
In [his climate of lack of public tslourecinn about Pmtlavd's wale<br />
aovrces, and unheard they am subject [o, it is not eu['peisiuN that Rep[e-<br />
..en[atsve Reawr how been I. 00' mowledge), acs¢ wly Comarem eve wM hoe<br />
..shed for Dowles havins were power equal he that of weshingtna.<br />
Respectfully n.mlicad, e tx.:-Q ),, , Rf.0<br />
RECEIVE!). DOE-RL Joseph L. Mi11et Jx.,M.a., (metima)<br />
JUL 1 4 10 52815 E. Marmot on.,. sandy; Ot.. 91055<br />
'NM13pli91o hl 00"<br />
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY<br />
Public Hearing - July 10, 1986 ^ECEIVEu DOE-RL<br />
BPA Auditorium, Portland, Oregp<br />
AL 1 4 1986<br />
TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA MORGAN<br />
615 2nd Street WM DIVISION<br />
Oregon City, OR 91045<br />
My name is .Patricia Morgan; I reside in Oregon City, but I live forever<br />
on Planat Earth. I would like to express. to you map emotions, but I knew that<br />
hearings personnel do not make decisions on actions. They make decisions on<br />
facts - and I will give you a few fagts, though I will admit from the start<br />
that I am not a learned scientist on nuclear issues. But first I must express<br />
my emotions:.<br />
MY first caution is that I'm sca re d. My reaction is to run, but there<br />
is nowhere to run t0. 1 sailed for seven years in the South Pacific, and I want<br />
to run back to that fast fading paradise, but there is no running if a repository<br />
is sited on the great Columbia Matawade,<br />
I an frustrated and feeling totally helpless in the power of the government<br />
and greedy corporations to decide the future of my children and this earth.I<br />
have not been lulled to sleep by the lies of the safety and necessity of nuclear<br />
anus and nuclear energy; thankfully, I am still a thinking and feeling human<br />
being.<br />
I believe we have become a frivolous society -- frivolous in the use of<br />
our resources and forgetful in our reverence fm the earth on which we live.<br />
I feel deeply that with reverence there emerges a conservation of resources that<br />
are Earth's continuing gift to its living creatures. For same unfathomable reason<br />
the poor white man is blinded by an ignorance that drives him to believe<br />
that he can conquer nature, that he does not need to live in hammy with the<br />
Earth. But when the plants are dead, the rains are acid, the ozone layer is<br />
gone and we are all dying of radiation. sickness, there will no longer be time<br />
to change.<br />
My biggest fear, and sadly it is held by every other mother I have talked<br />
to, and sadly I don't believe it is an unfounded fear, is the fear of whether<br />
1 will have the strength to slit my children's throat, my three children's throat,<br />
at the time of the nuclear holocaust due to a meltdown of the N-Reactor when<br />
3.4.3.1<br />
a major repository at <strong>Hanford</strong> shakes and trembles f ro m volcanic(earthquake ' acti-
J M 051<br />
V<br />
2.5.6<br />
page 2<br />
Morgan<br />
July 10, 1986<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
vity, releasing massive doses of high-level radiation into the surrounding environwant<br />
and into the Columbia River and the exposure is a two-week slow death wary<br />
rant. Can I look into my children's eyes and tell them it is the cost loving<br />
thing I. can do for them is to end there life today rather than put them through<br />
the torture of irradiated death?<br />
So those are my emotions. I would like to add that my second son who<br />
was conceived in Micronesia, close enough to Eniwetok, was barn bilaterally clubfeet,<br />
his feet twisted into half balls and pointing backwards, upside down.<br />
I was lucky: Ile only required 10 months of continuous casting, one major surgery.<br />
and four gonths. of polio-type braces. He is still very pigeon-toed; his musculature<br />
in his lower calf will never develop. As a mother it was a very torturous<br />
experience, very heart-breaking.. Was he deformed because of all the irradiated<br />
fish I ate living in Micronesia? I've often. wondered, .Birth defects is only<br />
one effect from radiation poisoning.<br />
We have borrowed the earth from our children; they will borrow it from<br />
their children.<br />
Facts. We have 43 years of accumulated nuclear waste and you and I don't<br />
know what to do with it. And it's not going away, is it? Facts: The people<br />
who created were not thinking much beyond their pocket books when they created<br />
it, so much so that they even have an insurance disclaimer stating the y will<br />
not be responsible for any kind of nuclear disaster. Facts: The government<br />
and greedy utilities are continuing to building nuclear power houses and create<br />
nuclear waste. Facts: They have no place to put it safely:.<br />
Sadly, I'm not a scientist; I'm Just a. sensible person trying to living<br />
In harmony with my bone. Oftentimes when I meet people with different value<br />
systems than 1, I walk around them. I let them be. We obviously have different<br />
value systems and I can't walk around you. I most shout out to you that<br />
you are wrong: You are morally, economically, spiritually and politically wrong<br />
to continue to produce nuclear anything. hid that is the beginning of the solutip..<br />
1 try to teach my children that it is okay to admit that on are wrong,<br />
Go 51<br />
page 3<br />
July 10. 1986<br />
!organ<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL la 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
that it is actually a sign of positive strength to admit you are wrong, to step<br />
down and try to correct your wrong. That is the beginning to the solution:<br />
Even Einstein hasadmitted he ..a wrong in ever unleashing such a power upon<br />
this earth.<br />
We don't need nuclear energy. Conservation measures have worked so effectively<br />
in the Northwest -- I don't. know about other parts of the nation -- that<br />
the power companies are losing money and trying to get rid of conservation mea<br />
sores -- again for their own greedy reasons. We don't need to kill people.<br />
I don't know of any women w children or even warmanging men who need to die.<br />
Wo don't need nuclear allthing, and the beginning to your problem of storage<br />
of nuclear waste is to stop producing it. Today. Pass a law. The goverment<br />
passes laws regulating our consciousness', regulating how fast we travel across<br />
the surface of the earth, regulating where our personal wastes go and these are<br />
all passed in the nave of providing ultimate safety to members of society. Pass<br />
a law which bans nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs. Simple.<br />
In Oregon, we are attempting to pass laws and I think we'll do<br />
it in November: Three petitions will be an the ballot dealing with the nuclear<br />
fuel cycle: one that will phase out nuclear weapons manufacture in Oregon by<br />
1990, one that will prohibit the operation of a nuclear power plant in Oregon,<br />
and a third dealing with low-level radioactive waste and laws requiring its safe<br />
containment. Oregon will set a precedent and became the first nuclear-free state<br />
In the union. You, as the U.S. Government, can pass national laws simply banning<br />
outlawing. forever ending the Production of high-level nuclear waste.<br />
So that's the solution. Stop . production of nuclear waste. Or that's part<br />
of the solution. I am not a learned expert an nuclear waste so I can't speak<br />
Intelligently .about how to deal with the waste already Produced. i can only Say<br />
that as with any logical solution to a problem, you most first set out strict<br />
criteria outlining the absolutely safest method and site. The criteria should<br />
not include, under any circumstance, political expediency, which seems to be<br />
an the top of your list right now. Soil is proving to be an inadequate method<br />
of deposition of our man-made wastes, but if you're insistent in using soil don't<br />
2.5.6<br />
2.5.6<br />
2.2.1
1 7 1 } m 0 1<br />
M<br />
00<br />
2 .1 a l<br />
Page<br />
4<br />
Horgan<br />
July 10, 1986<br />
051<br />
RECEIVED ODE-RL<br />
JUL 1 4 1966<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
^a 51<br />
place your high level radioactive waste in water permeated soil four miles from<br />
a major river, upstream from a million Or more people. I know that you know<br />
that <strong>Hanford</strong>, for that reason alone, is the most dangerous. most ridiculous site<br />
picked. My continue to wear the Idiot Caps. Take them off as Bob Pollard did<br />
In 1915 when he quit the NBC, taking the moral initiative to stop being the<br />
puppets of a crazy goverhment and greedy utilities.<br />
But if you're going to continue in finding a solution, continue to outline<br />
specific criteria: The site most NOT be within an earthquake Zone. The site<br />
lei must NOT be within an area of known volcanic activity. I demand of you, the<br />
2, 1,1<br />
DOE, that you came back to us with a list of criteria that we, the people of<br />
this region, must approve as .logical and safe criteria before you even suggest<br />
siting a permanent nuclear waste repository in our Northwest area.<br />
And emotions most enter Into your decisions because emotions are powerful.<br />
The Boston Tea Party was emotions: People fed up, absolutely fed up with<br />
.5.5 a government, fed up with taxation without representation. ea are fed up with<br />
2<br />
this forked-tongue syndrome, you c om ing to listen to our suggestions and then<br />
going back East, far away from the problem here, and making decisions about our<br />
lives without listening to your consciences. change your value systems. Take<br />
a walk .through Shriners Crippled Children . Hospital and hold the handless arm<br />
or an armless shoulder of a deformed child; go to a cancer ward and talk to those<br />
dying of cancer, a disease still increasing at rapid rates in spite of medicine's<br />
:sweat cures; go to the 93,000 people of the Chernobyl accident, as many<br />
of them slowly die from their exposures; go to the victims of Hiroshima; and<br />
if you have children, look hard into your children's eyes and ask haw you can<br />
end their misery the quickest if they were 25 miles from a disaster of the magnitude<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> could create; and then go dean into your heart, watch a sunset.<br />
And then list another criteria for a repository: that from this day forward<br />
mo re nuclear waste shall be produced, we can all change our lifestyles a<br />
2a 6 6 no<br />
little and live without wasting so much energy; we can change our values and live<br />
without desiring to murder women and children.<br />
You are forcing a time Nomb on the people of the Northwest and we don't<br />
want it, but then maybe it's time for another chapter in the history book called<br />
The <strong>Hanford</strong> Tea Party.<br />
poSa<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
-a- JUL 1A 686<br />
Tatierny gonna at U.S. Department of Suez" eeerings<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
July 10. 190E .. -<br />
Hi.i Natluro<br />
1266BE4Tth<br />
Portland; OR W233 r<br />
503-333-.6<br />
Mere . aim t. Pointe I . 4 like to make thin omtng, An a<br />
teeMOlogy professional. I n ex t to any Net then<br />
UVIROANERTAL IMPACT STATEMENT doeusant 1e defa2ive.<br />
toadpuate, alie na ting, e1ltla4 ill-rnwetch ad, - -<br />
052<br />
presueptuoua. a nd ludiaoum. I me not fooled by your<br />
elmplleltc and aaoingly anfldaat anewrs to such quentiona 2.3.2.10<br />
a• ghat le Tom issu.? -<br />
ds How ssfe ;e . the eexp 'ant 1t 1911 _<br />
a. what leWate own ba . erpectM 1. U. near £.tuts?<br />
a, what long-teve lapctn. can ". wpchedt<br />
The ... Tau v..c ex w. mat eatlefectory or praparly<br />
enalyted. Yen Ww'T know what the awns [tally aka. hw mean<br />
the wizen[ statage la, or. nest lapw ing can an erpadtM in<br />
the near or far fntnra.<br />
2.3.2.1<br />
ga back to tam drawing board. It in time far U. neperta—t<br />
of Enex9y to take betel tssponalbillty for making a<br />
mnptsnt and thorough aussssmt of tea technologies it
z<br />
052 053<br />
RECEIVED, DO E-RL<br />
JUL 14 Ines o sa I Department of Energy<br />
RECEIVED DOE.RL<br />
JUL 1 4 19W<br />
Will DIVISION<br />
2 - VIM DIVISION 625 MARION ST. NE, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE37840 0 TOLL FREE 1.906221-0035<br />
Ol<br />
to<br />
as.... uc YaaYVaaa as....an.. .n cagy<br />
emepn—t suet take account<br />
sort<br />
2 • ^' e ducat tonel, c pain, into and equity Segues health for safety, all people.<br />
By second point is to seems all of us that the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
nuclear east. leave is related to, apart of, a so a. acted<br />
3 • n G •V G t to other vital Suues vas are involved with and affected by<br />
.1<br />
in Us eastern U.S.. ndeely the prawrvatlan of old growth<br />
forest&. Specifically the CatA.drel Forest here in Oregon.<br />
0. are ale. requested to and effected by the inl..tic. bung<br />
inflicted on the Hopi and the Navq 0 peoples at Big NOuntain<br />
in Arbon..<br />
The Hopl r.,h., vanta ge ust 'If w dig precious things<br />
iron the Earth, as will invite dleeetee.<br />
A. we convene is this rocs agencies oor heart. and ]cluing<br />
our voice. month—, w n A. nareony --- as are ana value.<br />
our .aloe will be heard.<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Disposal<br />
Draft <strong>EIS</strong><br />
Testimony of Lynn 0. Frank, Director<br />
Oregon Department of Energy<br />
July 10, 19813<br />
1 am Lynn Frank. Director of the Oregon Department of Energy, representing<br />
Oregon Governor . Victor Atlyeh.<br />
We would like to share the conclusions of Oregon's Technical Review, which will be<br />
supported by campreheraiv e. technical analysis submi tted later. along with<br />
comments from citizens.<br />
For decades, we have lived In the shadow of the unk no wn and unseen perll of<br />
radioactivity at <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
The willingness of the new management at <strong>Hanford</strong> to open the books for public<br />
Inspection Is a welcome change In policy.<br />
The insights gained have been revealing, distressing and long overdue.<br />
With anguish, we have learned of past practices which simply would no t be accepted<br />
today..<br />
Today we have the opportunity for our voices to Da heard in responding to the<br />
challenge of what to do with defense wastes at <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
For his initiative In Proposing a colutlon. we applaud the Richland Operations<br />
Manager, Mike Lawrence. For acknowledging Oregon's vital Interests, we thank<br />
him and you as well. That recognition too is long overtlue.<br />
There are three principles which most golds us in meeting the challenge.<br />
First. long term risk to public health and Safety and the environment simply 3.5 .5.33<br />
can no t be accepted. No action should ever breach that standard<br />
Second, if the options presented dp not give us the greatest confidence that<br />
standard can be achieved -- we urge you to pursue more In no vative<br />
technologies to gain that confidence, and that you no t risk needless radiation<br />
exposure to the workers.<br />
Third. wastes which can be Safely retrieved and reliably disposed should be<br />
acted upon.row.<br />
3.3.5.3<br />
3.3..5.3<br />
The Oreaen D&eanmont of Su gar is ea E.cdl O ppo rtunity, Emolover
053 ER<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
V<br />
O<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
-Page Two- JUL 14 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
The option that gives us the greatest confidence is disposal at a geologic<br />
repository. That repository too should be chosen on the basis of the greatest<br />
confidence in the ability to protect Public health and safety and the<br />
environment<br />
2.1.1<br />
Lest there be any doubt. it Is our clear and abiding conviction That <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
falls that test.<br />
[<br />
3.3.J 3J<br />
3.3.5.3<br />
3.3.5.4<br />
3.3.5,3<br />
Those principles lead us to these conclusions:<br />
1. The high-level liquid wastes in the double shell tanks can and should be<br />
retrieved, glasified, and moved to a future geologic repository.<br />
Z The high level solidwastes in the single shell tanks should be retrieved<br />
glaied, sif and moved to a future geologic repository.<br />
For Nat to be achieved more imwvath i, technologies than those<br />
considered must be pursued, because of the tremendous cost and needless<br />
radiation exposure to workers.<br />
The Imminent threat to the environment was relieved when Hqulds were<br />
taken from these tanks. That action gives us the time to pursue safe.<br />
cost-effective technologies to retrieve that waste for disposal in a<br />
geologic repository.<br />
We are confidant that we can know if that can be achieved within five<br />
years. Only if that cannot be achieved, would we urge stabilization in<br />
place. Even then the wastes should be solidified and more comprehensive<br />
ergineered barriers adopted. -<br />
3.<br />
3.1,3J . LJ 25<br />
the waste repmi tory being built in New Mexico,<br />
3.1.3.25 '3 . 4. Plutonium wastes produced before 1970 should be retrieved and disposed<br />
Plutonlum wastes produced after1970 should be retrieved and disposed at<br />
at the New Mexico repoiitory.<br />
However those pre-1970 wastes are dispersed and not as safely<br />
retrievable nww. We urge you again to complete s more critical analysis<br />
within five years to avald unreasoned roar and unnecessary radiation<br />
a'"a to workers. Only If a better retrieval option cannot be<br />
achieved. should stabilization be pursued. Even than, higher standards<br />
for protection must be accomplished.<br />
C<br />
3.1. G 2 J<br />
5.<br />
The strontium and cesium wastes encapsulated for medical and irometrial<br />
. use should be shipped to a future geologle repository.<br />
Finally. we recognize that the initiative of U.S. DOE alone will not be enough.<br />
We support Congressional action to:<br />
-Page Three-<br />
RECEIVED COE-RL<br />
JUL 14 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
- Direct that department to comply with federal and state r o ammenR on 2. 3. L 14<br />
waste handling and disposal for chemical and low-level radioactive<br />
waste as well_ and,<br />
- Establish and enforce a descending srtedtle of compliance. 2. 2 . 2<br />
But, even that will not be enough. Congress must he now what it should have done<br />
40 years ago:<br />
2. 2 . 9<br />
Provide funding to dispose of these and future deferes wastes.<br />
Congress demands that Oregonians pay-as-we-go to provide funds for waste<br />
disposal for me commercial nuclear industry. Congress should demand no less of<br />
itself and the U.S. DOE.<br />
2.2.9<br />
Congress should pay now for wastes produced now in its nuclear weapons production<br />
programs.<br />
2.2.9<br />
The cast will be great. But. for 40 years. them wastes have grown as a liability of<br />
this nation. It Is time that debt be paid<br />
Thank You
Im<br />
053 3<br />
RECEIVED DOEAL<br />
OREGON POSITION<br />
ON<br />
DISPOSAL OF THE<br />
HANFORD DEFENSE WASTES<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
pia 5.3<br />
JUL1a1985<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
OREGON POSITION<br />
ON<br />
DISPOSAL OF THE HANFORD DEFENSE WASTES<br />
- JUL 14 1985<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
In April 1986 the U.S. Department of Energy issued a draft environmental<br />
impact statement (EI S) on <strong>Hanford</strong> defense waste dis posal. The draft <strong>EIS</strong><br />
sets forth disposal options for radioactive wastes accumulated durin g .<br />
four decades of weapons production at <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
The ODOE'<strong>Hanford</strong> Advisory Committee sponsored two public workshops to<br />
discuss and .comment on <strong>EIS</strong> issues.. The <strong>Hanford</strong> Review committee reviewed<br />
the draft <strong>EIS</strong> and also provided technical comments. These reviews and<br />
comments were used to develop the Oregon position.<br />
V<br />
N<br />
J'uly 10, 1986<br />
Prepared by:.<br />
The Oregon Depactreent of Energy<br />
625 Marion Street NE, Salem. OR 97310<br />
The comments reflected the need for Oregon to take a strong position on<br />
deciding the permanent disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> defense wastes. Our challenge<br />
is to obtain the necessary level of health and safety in the most cost<br />
effective way. Then, we most work to gain support for our position.<br />
Basis fo_r Oregon's Position<br />
No must eliminate thelong-term risks to pubttehealth and safety of<br />
defense wastes temporarily stored at <strong>Hanford</strong>. We should make decisions<br />
now that can be made now. Those wastes<br />
are easily cleaned up should 3.3.5.3<br />
be. For those wastes for which we have that the<br />
and disposal<br />
technology, and where Current practices eventually will lead to leaks, we<br />
should take ail reasonable actions to process and dispose of the waste.<br />
Some wastes are difficult to deal with, but current storage poses no<br />
Immediate problem. For those, we must develop greater confidence In our<br />
options. This process should be designed to take no more than the next q C<br />
five years. Our priority should be to avoid long term risks to ground 3. 3 • 5<br />
water and the river. Research should be focused on ways to dispose of<br />
wastes by looking for Innovative waste treatment techniques.<br />
Based on these criteria, the Governor has taken this position on <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
defense wastes.<br />
1 1 p 11<br />
9<br />
3 • 3 w 1 • 1<br />
1) Transform existing and future high-level liquid wastes into 3 . x 8 .<br />
glass. Dispose of these wastes In a future geological<br />
repository.<br />
2) Treat and ship post-19 70 plutonium wastes (called transuranic<br />
ITRUI s) to the defense repository for plutonium wastes in<br />
New Mexico.<br />
wwt^<br />
3 • 1 a 3 • L5
V 3<br />
l+l?•1'•<br />
®53<br />
3) All other wastes must be better understood in terms of the 0053<br />
trade-offs. Reasonable decisions must be made. but In light of<br />
the priorities mentioned above.<br />
-3-<br />
RECEIV'"D c DGE-RL<br />
RECEIVED CGF_RL<br />
The various wastes are discussed below.<br />
JUL 1 a IM<br />
JUL 1 d W6<br />
Double Shell Tanks contain high level liquids and suspended solids.<br />
should Investigate other cost effective means of retrieval. VI<br />
WAY DIVISION 605J believe this can be and should be achieved within five years. DIVISION<br />
Option I. Waste in these be retrieved,. gi asst p ied and<br />
pC5<br />
disposed in se future wast e<br />
geologic repository. the plant to<br />
the wastes in single shell tanks have been processed lea reduce the<br />
i these wastes could be completed by ng The cost<br />
water in them. This has reduced the possibility of<br />
of this<br />
s option is about million for existing<br />
waste, tanks. thus, time me spent research todisposal options<br />
and $1.1 billion for futureure waste.<br />
willl not significantly<br />
lcantly impact the environment Inn Me the short-term.<br />
Option 2. Dried and stabilized waste could be disposed near ground<br />
.surface. The waste could be covered with a rock and soil<br />
barrier to prevent flow of rainwater through the waste.<br />
Oregon's Position<br />
Oregon recommends option 1. This .material is liquid high-level<br />
waste. If left in liquid form, these wastes eventually will leak.<br />
e These wastes also are easily retrievable. They should be disposed In<br />
a Opel chic repository. This approach is consistent with standards<br />
for the commercial Industry.<br />
3.3 5,3<br />
If studies show that in-place stabilization is the best option for<br />
single shell tank wastes, engineered barriers should not be the only . r . . p<br />
means of protecting public health and safety. Multiple barriers are O U<br />
needed. An example would be to mix the wastes within the tank with<br />
grout. Thus, they would not easily be dissolved in water If It<br />
entered the tank. Engineered barriers should be relied upon as a<br />
secondary level of protection.<br />
Post-1970 Plutonium Codtaminated Wastes consist of contaminated equipment<br />
anal abo,atory wastes. This waste has been stored for retrieval since<br />
1970.<br />
V<br />
N<br />
Single Shell Tanks contain solids I. the formof sludge. or salt cake.<br />
Option 1. Removal and treatment of the waste at <strong>Hanford</strong>, Eventual<br />
The 1 9 rad ilwity In this material is similar to the wastes In the double disposal at the defense re pository for plutonium wastes in<br />
.shell tanks. But, it is older and more dilute.<br />
New Mexl on. This would require a processing facility to be<br />
completed by 1990-1993. The cost of this option is $180<br />
Option 1. The waste could be retrieved and separated into high-level<br />
milli..:<br />
and low-level waste. High-level waste could be converted<br />
to glass for future repository disposal. The loci-level -<br />
- Option 2. Near surface stabilization with a cement-like material. A<br />
waste could be converted to a cement-like material and<br />
barrier identical to that described in the second option<br />
disposed me site. for double shell tank waste - - will also be used.<br />
_<br />
Option 2. The waste could be stabilized in place. This treatment<br />
Oregon's Po3ftion<br />
.old include filling the empty space In tanks with crushed -.<br />
'rock. The raleflow barrier describetl earlier would also be<br />
Oregon recommends option. 1. The storage of these wastes was designed<br />
used.<br />
for retrieval. These wastes pose an extremely long-term radiation<br />
hazard. They have been put in wooden boxes and steel drums and<br />
Option 3. There Is not enough information to choose now. We need a -<br />
.buried. The deterioration of these containers eventually will 33.53 3.3.5.3<br />
better understanding of the trade-offs and more confidence-<br />
release contamination Into the soil. They should be retrieved and<br />
In the options before we decide.<br />
disposed in the New Mexico repository.<br />
Oregon's Position<br />
Oregon recommends Option 3.' The material in single shell tanks<br />
Pre-1910 Plutonium Contaminated Waste consists of general trash,. failed<br />
equipment. and 24 soil sites contaminated by releases directly to the<br />
3 3. 5 should be processed no matter what option is chosen. The best method ground. These wastes are not readily retrievable.<br />
. w 3<br />
is to retrieve and glassify it. But, this option involves tremendous<br />
most and needless potential radiation exposure to workers, US ME<br />
Option 1. Removal and treatment of buried solid waste and soil sites<br />
which exceed US ODE'S classification for law-level<br />
plutonium contaminated waste. Treated waste could be<br />
shipped to the defense repository for plutonium wastes in<br />
New Mexico.<br />
'
F<br />
f..<br />
WC 053<br />
3 .3.5.3<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
- g - JUL I d 1986 a d<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
Option 2. Immobilization of the waste burial grounds by filling with<br />
a cement-like mixture. The area Is to be covered with a<br />
raInflow barrier as previously described.<br />
Option 3. There is not enough Information to choose now. We need a<br />
better understanding of the trade-offs and more confidence<br />
In the options before we decide.<br />
Oregon's Position<br />
Oregon recommends Option 3. The wastes should be removed and treated<br />
if reasonably achievable. These wastes pose the same hazard as<br />
past-1970 contaminated waste and should be treated the same. If this<br />
goal cannot be achieved, more confidence in stabilizing the waste and<br />
confirmation of barrier protection must be accomplished. Again, this<br />
should be completed within five years.<br />
These wastes have been buried for many years Spending more time to<br />
research proper retrieval and disposal methods will not Increase the<br />
the hazard In the short-term.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
Congressional Initiatives to direct US DOE to comply with current federal O<br />
and state requirements on waste handling and disposal. A schedule of L 2 . 2<br />
compliance should be drawn up and enforced. Congress must provide<br />
- funding to achieve clean-up of these wastes as well. This funding should<br />
be provided before any of these actions are required by Congress '.<br />
2 . 2 . 9<br />
Forty years of defense materials p roduction has resulted in an enormous<br />
eminent of radioactive wastes at <strong>Hanford</strong>. So much waste poses difficult<br />
and tomplex retrieval, processing. and dis p osal p roblems. Funding has<br />
been ample for the production of the defense materials but not for waste<br />
disposal. Oregon believes. that funding policy is not acceptable.<br />
Congress requires the commercial nuclear industry to concurrently set<br />
aside funds for the disposal of radioactive wastes as they are<br />
generated. USOOE also should be subject. to this requirement. Plutonium<br />
production. should not be allowed without concurrently providing funding<br />
to dispose of generated wastes.<br />
Governor Atiyeh will be workingwith Oregon's Congressional delegation to<br />
see that these actions are carried out.<br />
V<br />
W<br />
Strontium and Cesium wastes. are double encapsulated in stainless steel<br />
cylinders. These wastes are stored in water basins.<br />
Option 1. The capsules could continue to be stored in water basins<br />
until 1995. Capsules could then be packaged and shipped to<br />
a future geologic repository.<br />
Option 2. Capsules could continue to be stored In water basins until<br />
2010. Beginning in 2010, the capsules could be placed in a<br />
dry storage vault. A protective barrier as described<br />
earlier could be constructed over the site In the years<br />
2013 to 2015.<br />
Oregon's Position<br />
NOTE: This paper will be the. executive summary for the State of Oregon's<br />
technical and public comments on the Draft <strong>EIS</strong>. These formal comments<br />
will be submitted to US WE on or before August 9. 1986.<br />
3.3.5.3<br />
Oregon recommends Option 1. Many of the capsules have been leased to<br />
Industry for sterilization facilities and process control. The<br />
'remainder's stored in water pools and Is under constant attention.<br />
There is no Immediate hazard from short-term storage of this waste.<br />
But, these capsules are highly radloactivite and will remain so for<br />
thousands of years. Eventual geologic disposal will provide safe<br />
long-tern disposal.<br />
2 .3.1.13<br />
3.1.6.1<br />
Other Concerns<br />
Oregon also has serious concerns about chemical waste and low level<br />
radioactive wastes from defense activities. USDOE's proposal does not<br />
deal effectivel y with these tSlm.S. But, they are potentially serious<br />
risks to public health and safety and the environment. Oregon Supports<br />
LFIX B:mi<br />
293% (OI1F2)
1 7 a<br />
3i '- 054<br />
^/<br />
F' ,^ T4„,P-, w -Q-<br />
-77<br />
°7°P^ µ^}<br />
'- '-t<br />
C1 yt^ —<br />
^vedl, J,v LL^:(a, a<br />
hue.-FJ ArnccosB<br />
2.3.1.14 wl °^ /y tE tam= Li : k P<br />
v<br />
A<br />
,L w iz3(,.. ^ Cvv(0^ l>n;f lavr-. ^(^' "t y-p C.^'^"<br />
^ p^ ^ lam, v-p Flis pm[[ ^^ ^; ,^. s M. ^iti^((//p^p g<br />
p /J<br />
54U- N[ /`^r ^"C ('UY r'3*e rp Cdv.Nw .JrAkfr^.e<br />
2) w ^ ^ u„n ^<br />
r.,&6lr-css<br />
,^ p rr ® ! / ^r<br />
3J $'Pv^`..a-c,^ 1 ehe ^edfFTCt.S -t /w/er^Y<br />
/<br />
u 31'<br />
q-, t4 ^ q^. ie „ArR .<br />
^^ t "^ Y<br />
KSG^<br />
( `S OCD i<br />
3^ SPa.SOrcr^ .? .h.^-7^-fWC^Jr`h dm^5^ ^^prfF a . 2a<br />
'n ^^ if q t SY<br />
^aAJr ^'l^ g I 5 ^ %.<br />
s^*.+^ M1i ^<br />
ki.^--^<br />
}^l^ry<br />
(Qa<br />
'KxT T4 ^ ^i(-ert JS ^CS^ ^^ L[^he 4r -c-..— west<br />
SA C o^^'<br />
IIDD<br />
/J a`5 a^7-c cPe.rz /^, sri^+.v^ d/.<br />
/ /<br />
7^- aS,^n<br />
J^<br />
x ^^o o^xC cwSM cQsPtY./<br />
Q!'- M'^Y-':'rT^c^:cro(u' 3<br />
t°,+'wtr ea.( tue.^r<br />
p<br />
Q.+- lefr,<br />
/<br />
w<br />
1<br />
:u^.^—^ ^z^ c^s=., se{c<br />
/.<br />
2.3.1.2<br />
FEC_IVzu DCE-ra.<br />
AL 141986<br />
WMDIVISIDN, i<br />
2G n 'Y J h ieL Mme..3-lvK kln vel a, (t'<br />
^/x,Q Aok^ f^,/^ v( q,,<br />
YD<br />
// /Q 4ṇ^n<br />
NnC^[^'<br />
/^^ we /-4.1 $ n/n cs5' S$ '1^1)bsA^^'//<br />
'Yn Hj M1YG ^yy °^ FMf (RyI- /.163 /1^ ,b RGa: NILS^<br />
g<br />
K5 r*`9c5^<br />
2.3.1.14
055<br />
d ll%7C a.vv^a- .;1c Fcw wa^sv—^ not<br />
2r^ C<br />
2.5.5 aJ<br />
I rE,4 d^ y^ ^ we..,<br />
//<br />
l Gryt ^fDy{ n )-<br />
I^I1<br />
I y^r r9^<br />
g/<br />
I,I I_<br />
TESTIMONY<br />
BY CONGRESSMAN RON WHEN<br />
REFUSE THE U.S. DEPARTMRNT OF ENERGY<br />
HEARINGS ON THE HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE<br />
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT nECeIVtU (L<br />
PORTLAND, OREGON<br />
JULY 10, 1986<br />
JUL 1 4 IM<br />
- WM DIVISION<br />
Thank you for convening this hearing.<br />
.any people in the Northeast ..a worried .beat the ....ibility o£.a<br />
futu re repository being built at <strong>Hanford</strong>. Bat not everyone is aware<br />
that the place holds enough waste right now for a madman'. nightmare.<br />
V<br />
Ill<br />
^-<br />
G N^ ^1-L l^Laa3TT 1<br />
^ l ^ I }^' S ^p^j h, O<br />
)<br />
< , Le ^ 5 w^<br />
.,..:^ ^„ ^ er'<br />
/<br />
ff((//<br />
^^ •yr<br />
/p<br />
Last February, the Northwest learned about the massive releases of -<br />
radiation into the air from <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
What xe didn't hear about Ss the massive dumping of liquid wastes<br />
into the soil at <strong>Hanford</strong> which has turned the .....dwatev -<br />
radioactive.<br />
The majority of the citi.... of the Northwest have nb idea he. much<br />
Wants sits in old and corroded tanks at <strong>Hanford</strong>..<br />
They don't knew the story of tank 105-A, how it ruptured and<br />
.,filed its contact. into the Boil when someone put waste in it<br />
that was too hot.<br />
They do not knew about tanks with holes plugged by radioactive<br />
salt..<br />
-<br />
They do not know about "slurry growth" in the n w double Walled<br />
tanks -- tanks filled with radioactive wastes rising like cakes<br />
I. the oven, filled with bubble. of potentially flammable gas. -<br />
I am not asc entiat. I can't talk a beat nuclear physic.. But I<br />
can tell You what Oregonians do and don't want.<br />
2.2.1.<br />
Oregonians want DOE to clean up <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
Oregonians don't want DOE to turn <strong>Hanford</strong> into a National Sacrifice<br />
Zone.<br />
- /cP. ^"C ar ,^ yafm^p ev^vP<br />
GU e^^m-l^ Fv ^p
_ -<br />
055 M<br />
V Q1<br />
TESTIMONY/OOH HEARING<br />
TESTIMONY/DOE HEARING RECEIVED DOEERL JULY 10, 1986<br />
.JULY 10, 1986<br />
PAGE I<br />
PACE z<br />
JUL 1 d 19860065;<br />
Gcr<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
"JUL 1 a 1986 0<br />
Morthwesterners also don't want DOE to leave nuclear waste in One last point<br />
3 . 3 . 2. 1 before I g It is y nderst tiding than"RIVISION<br />
hearing 1 designed tallow as y citizens of the Northwest a<br />
J<br />
Shallow graves in the ground when there is a reasonable alternative.<br />
. possible to share with DOE their opinion of the draft environmental<br />
That's a lesson D OE has learned.In fact, DOE appears t<br />
impact statement. As a public Outreach exercise, however, I'm<br />
1<br />
o<br />
2. 2.1Q believe that the soil at <strong>Hanford</strong> v nothing more than Nature's Own afraid this hearing ha g failed on two points.<br />
Nuclear Waste Treatment Facility<br />
N mber pne; -uMe[Che National Environmental Policy Act, it a<br />
2 O Take, for<br />
2..1 L 1<br />
example, the use of soil to disposeofradioactive liquid customary -- if not mandatory -- for DOE to flag for the public<br />
was tea. That a illegal at c memfal nuclear iacvliilea, sad DOE which Of the <strong>EIS</strong> alternetivea it prefer.. It he. at done eo in<br />
itself has adopted a guideline against the practice.<br />
this case.<br />
2.2.10<br />
2.<br />
c<br />
:/<br />
But it has never applied the guideline to <strong>Hanford</strong>. TO this day,<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> pours gallons upon gallons of radioactive liquids into the<br />
soil, shaking your head when people criticize you for it.<br />
The a attitude n . to apply to Solid wastes.<br />
WE'. Fiscal Year 198 7 budget request for money to look at ways to<br />
remove the tank waste from <strong>Hanford</strong> is peanuts compared to what it<br />
wants to Spend to develop ways to keep it in the ground..<br />
c C They tell Cengresa keeping the waste in the ground will save<br />
2 . :J J maracas Sums Frankly, I cannot believe it HAS to cost eleven<br />
billion dollars to remove the wastes at <strong>Hanford</strong> to a repository. I<br />
just don't think DOE has looked hard enough for a solution.<br />
2 .2.1<br />
2 /^<br />
.4.1. 1<br />
The third critical step for the Northwest in for DOE to take an<br />
honest look at removing all the waste from the site -- and not be<br />
prejudiced by the munlawful decision to table the search fora second<br />
repository.<br />
Finally, DOE must atop putting itself above this country's<br />
eneironmental.laws -- more specifically, the hazardous waste laws.<br />
The defense waste at <strong>Hanford</strong> isn't just radioactive. It's toxic --<br />
filled with heavy metals and organic compounds It's also<br />
2.3.1.. 14 chemically reactive -- and under the winng conditions, perhaps even<br />
explosive.<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
Cangee.e has xrustled with the problem of hazard... waste. three<br />
time. in the last decade, and each time it has given the<br />
Environmental Pratection Agency (EPA) the power to regulate them.<br />
And, yet, time and time again. DOE has ignored or .resisted EPA<br />
regulation. In fact, DOE had to be taken to court before it would<br />
admit that it ... Subject to the hazardous waste laws.<br />
That is like palming extra cards in a game of poke[ while everyone<br />
else is betting on the cards already disclosed. My cards are<br />
already on the table. So ... those of the other witnesses at<br />
today's'-- and other --hearings.' Marc are DOE's cards?<br />
Mat trade-offs 1s DOE willing to make to pursue it. preferred<br />
alternative? What will that mean for the groundwater -- and the<br />
soil - and the livelihood of Northeasterners?<br />
Without this full disclosure, l feel a bit like we're tieing asked to<br />
operate with blinders on -- and I don't think that serves any of me. e.<br />
Me .....d concern has to do with the way the DOE sought public input<br />
into this hearing. For the life of me I can't figure but why with a<br />
more than $1 million public information budget, the deppartment<br />
couldn't have had a local contact number or a 1-800number instead<br />
of requiring people to call long distance t0 Richland to sign up to<br />
speak.<br />
2.3.2.8<br />
2.3.2.2<br />
p<br />
2.3.2. L 8<br />
p<br />
2.3. 2. 8<br />
Mr. Chairman, if you come away with any message today I hope it is<br />
-this. Oregonians care -- and deeply --.about what in :done at<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong>. We care about whether our water is contaminated -- out /^<br />
3. 2.<br />
environment endangered -- our future cheated. we may not live in<br />
4<br />
Washington,. but for Oregonians, <strong>Hanford</strong> is about as up close and<br />
per tonal a it get..<br />
sea<br />
1<br />
Even today, DOE ...let. recognizing EPA and the state of<br />
underwaste68al law to regulate the hazardous<br />
2.4.1. 1 camponen't. afatheseidefense<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
DOE is Got -- and mu at e not be above the lax. If DOE beli ve. it<br />
dese ves special treatment, it rshould go to the authorities, apply<br />
for a varianceand pp e it. It Shouldn't just pretend that that.<br />
is one set of rules tax everyone else and another for it.
a<br />
f 8° 3<br />
_A7 ej<br />
is<br />
M69<br />
Sf M[SR1' OF IEIII41. E. iNt4 SKI<br />
on behalf of<br />
THE IPPLUE OF ^ VMERS OF ©ldtK Cl]U 11Y, WASHIN<br />
July 10, 1986<br />
SUeIFGf: Cements on the USWE praft Emftermotal Inpact Statement on<br />
Dafenae Wastes.<br />
RECEIVZD DOE-RI<br />
AL 14 IM<br />
WM DIVISION C<br />
RECEjV&j DOE-RL<br />
to'prounte public lnrmlva set by providing "lay" avlanation, 0 a As,M 1 a 1966<br />
other teals men-experts have the time and facility to comprehend.<br />
664<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
xhe..LC_N,4 0,, .- shore the State of Washington ' s belief that this process<br />
is not the naval type of <strong>EIS</strong> review. We are ephatimlly net in the position<br />
I an Helen Fanetouski. I reside at 12714 SE Park Street, Vancouver,<br />
WA 98684. I appear today in the cou ny of other mutters of the Nuclear Waste<br />
Committee of the league of Wonen voters of Clark County, Washington. We wish to<br />
present policy-oriental cuementa on the subject <strong>EIS</strong> . and the overall waste<br />
disposal process entrusted to the USDOE.<br />
a{cc.<br />
The iM^, has . fortunately benefitted from a close and cooperative relationship<br />
with. Use Washington State Nuclear West. Board, the Offire of Nuclear Waste<br />
Of mazsholli% argxmons aeg inst a mnjet Federal action. Instead, we are all<br />
..possible for helpi ng you fi nd says to ensure through -r..di.1 ass eures sM<br />
planning that <strong>Hanford</strong> def en se waste s, are disposed of safely and effectively.<br />
The M of CC endorses the generally supportive stance of our state onwards the<br />
USOOE's c®itasnt to isproved waste sanagsnent at <strong>Hanford</strong>. In return, w urge<br />
you W cooperatively assist in meeting the pcogma re Iuiranents of the Washington<br />
State tern , and specifically to anticipate and/or coply with the State's<br />
continuing Breeds for timely, axasate, and complete information.<br />
2.3.2.12<br />
V<br />
Masummset, a nd the Miclea, Waste Advisory Council on which ona of one moaners<br />
serves. We have also observed or participated in a variety of settings anal wrkshops<br />
relevant to defense waste and/or waste monaga enc at <strong>Hanford</strong>. We generally<br />
defer to anal racer in .the covenants under preparation by the Mn'B and undergoing<br />
extensive coordination within the state prior to the August 9th deadline for<br />
public comment. While we recognise .and expect that the state's draft review<br />
comments may be further refined, we are war appreciative of the openness of our<br />
store officials in circulating their is. analysis at public aeetings tbrwgh-<br />
out the state a for their rec eptivity to citizen viewpoints.<br />
O re characteristic of the. state of Washin ton's approach we wish you<br />
would sealers is an awidamx of the project,,scific, o, pmgrammtic approach<br />
to ampler technical and policy issues which are frequently inextricably<br />
interrelated, irrespective of the class of waste. The general public really<br />
cannot cope well wlth yea. caipartmntalizatfon of the issues and the failure<br />
rt<br />
-Y . 1 . 1<br />
With respect to the D<strong>EIS</strong>, we .have three amjor concerns to express.<br />
(1)We urge you to revise the analysis in both are, and structure to<br />
provsde for a austere approach town integrated dis po sal > strm for both the<br />
radioective a nd emaciated chenirnl wastes. the latter hove ndt gotten the<br />
traahrent their presence at <strong>Hanford</strong> and the hazards they present warrant. the<br />
State will wtline in its review — m an Ammatim mehnnical concept for<br />
their boosting: 'ibis concept should be investigated by'the USDOE.<br />
(2) We urge you to waist the analysisto expressly consider the<br />
technical inplicatians of presidential decisions: the first, to cminglem<br />
defense wastes in s repository, and Wu second, to indefinitely postpone the 2<br />
sacred repository progree and possibly aneos the WA of 1982 to immense tonnage<br />
linite. We sh ore the cmnrern that thers may be an underlying aeeumption that the<br />
sf aR le-ahail tank waame are W b e, stabilimd in place. Such an assumption<br />
r he rsdfioatiaa for the engineering design sod capacity of a deop repository .<br />
The State of Washinton senders if there is an insufficient b wme Of intect<br />
3.3.5.8<br />
.1.3<br />
.3.5.7<br />
page 2.
.......-......<br />
_<br />
C<br />
yY € 4<br />
c 0 4 8 a<br />
05!<br />
^9<br />
Chairman,<br />
Subcommittee on General Oversight,<br />
Northwest Power, and Forest Management<br />
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs<br />
U.S. No... of Nola, ... ntatives<br />
HEARING BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY<br />
'i Lo<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
TESTIMONY BY U.S. PEPIIESENTATIVE JIM WEAVER Page Two<br />
JUL iq 1986<br />
ON<br />
DISPOSAL OF SANFORD DEFENSE NIGH LEVEL,<br />
TRANSURANIC AND TANK WASTES,<br />
DRAFT ENVIRONAENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
WMDNISION CL?<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
0`"57<br />
00 5, 7<br />
JUL 14 06 C01<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
In 1960, Dr. Lev Tamura.., A Soviet Scientist who later<br />
I<br />
emigrated, traveled along a highway near the city of Kyshtym on the O<br />
eastern slope of the Urals. He later reported that:<br />
'About 100 kilometers from Sverdlovsk, a highway sign<br />
warned drivers not to atop for the next 20-30 kilometers 3<br />
CF<br />
and to drive through at maximum speed. On both aides of<br />
the road, as far as one could see, the land was deadr no<br />
village., no towns, no Cultivated fields or pastures, no 3 f}<br />
hard., no people, nothing. • -^•<br />
fi<br />
American Scientists now agree that this Contaminated wasteland was f1<br />
the result of careless disposal of the radioactive waste resulting<br />
from producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. The Soviet facility<br />
is thought to have been patterned after the U.S. facilities at the<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> Reservation.<br />
n<br />
0<br />
C<br />
M<br />
July 10, 1906<br />
Bonneville Power Adminiatratien Auditorium<br />
Portland, Oregon<br />
2:00 P.m.<br />
DOE'. 1000-page Draft Envir..ntal Impact Statement (<strong>EIS</strong>) on<br />
disposal of radioactive waste resulting from military-related<br />
nuclear activities at <strong>Hanford</strong> differs from its subject matter in 2<br />
rays: first, it is not radloactivei..econd, it Can be usefully<br />
recycled. - -
.<br />
05'7 05'7<br />
Page Three<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1? 1986 ot5l<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
Page Pour<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL. 1 4 1986. X59<br />
Wh1 DIVISION<br />
Do<br />
O<br />
p- C<br />
STOP MAKING MORE WASTE, Now<br />
This document fails to-meet the requirements of the National<br />
environmental Policy Act of 1969, because it fails to even mention<br />
2.5 e6. the most desirable alternative to disposing of the additional<br />
2,5 , 6<br />
military high-level and transuranic radioactive waste now being<br />
produced at <strong>Hanford</strong>: STOP HAKING.IT, NOW. STOP MAKING TOR PROBLEM<br />
MASS. The HIS state. that the radioactivity of the 'future tank<br />
waste' produced between now and the year 1995 will by then exceed<br />
that of the 'existing tank waste . by a factor e£-3 (200 million<br />
curie. v. 70 million curies). We non eliminate three-fourths of<br />
the problem by not producing more waste.<br />
Where does all of the waste come from? It results from the<br />
production of plutonium for nuclear weapon.. Low-enriched uranium<br />
fuel is irradiated in the N-Reactor. The spent fuel is then -<br />
chopped up and dissolved in the PURKX reprocessing plant, which<br />
extract. the , tonium and leaves the fission products and<br />
transuranic elements (including some of the plutonium) as liquid<br />
high-level radioactive waste, which is still pumped into huge tanks<br />
buried under about le feet Of _dirt.<br />
and moreplutonium for nuclear weapons. NO(. We do not need to<br />
expand our nuclear arsenal. But the Reagan Administration is now<br />
engaged in the biggest build-up of nuclear weapon. and plutonium<br />
ever. The testimony presented before my Subcommittee on June 16 by<br />
the Department of Defense and two independent experts on nuclear<br />
arms (including Dr. Theodore Taylor; . former nuclear weapon designer<br />
and former deputy director of the U.S. Defense Atomic Support<br />
2.5.6<br />
Agency)) showed that, in any event, continued plutonium production.<br />
at <strong>Hanford</strong> I. not needed for national security. We could . shut down<br />
the N-Reactor right now, halt the PUNRX reprocessing plant, stop<br />
producing high-level radioactive waste at <strong>Hanford</strong>, and still get an<br />
equal amount of plutonium (about 600 kilograms per year) in leas<br />
dangerous ways, such asm<br />
-1. Recycling the plutonium in retired warheads. We already have<br />
2.<br />
100,000 kilograms of plutonium in existing weapons--160 times<br />
the annual production of the N-Reactor and PUNSX. Plutonium<br />
has a half-life of 24,000 years. It doesn't wear Oct.<br />
more efficiently using plutonium scrap. The existing scrap<br />
may be equal to as such as 10 years of N-Reactor production.<br />
Does our nation need to use Sanford facilities to produce more<br />
3. If absolutely"neee.sary,' expanding plutonium productionat
05'7 057<br />
Page Five<br />
RECEIVED DDE-RL<br />
JUL 12.198 6 600<br />
Page six<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 141966 Ca57<br />
µM1 DIVISION<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
00<br />
N<br />
the Savannah River reactors in South Carolina, which already<br />
produce about 1500 kilograms of plutonium annually and are<br />
leas vulnerable than the N-Reactor to catastrophic accident.<br />
Shutting down the N-Reactor and the PORE% reprocessing plant<br />
would also protect the people of the Northwest from the threat of<br />
2.5. 6 cmtaetropbic nuclear accidents that could involve either facility.<br />
At my Subcommittee's hearing on May 19 here in Po rt land,<br />
independent experts on graphite reactors testified that an N-<br />
Reactor accident on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster, causing<br />
.4.3.1 thousands of injuries, was distinctly possible. The expert.<br />
3<br />
identified several unresolved safety problem., including:<br />
1. Reaction of the uranium metal fuel with water to produce<br />
hydrogen and the potential for explosion.<br />
2. The possibility of single pipe failures that could disable<br />
both the primary and emergency core Cooling system and lead to<br />
melting of 70 fuel rode per failure.<br />
3. Ignition of a self-sustaining graphite fire by the heat of<br />
melting fuel.<br />
4. Contamination of the Columbia River by the once-through -<br />
emergency Core cooling system.<br />
S. Multiple pressure spikes defeating the filtered confinement fj<br />
system and resulting in unfiltered re leases of radioactivity.<br />
6. Absence of seismic support appropriate for the seismicity of r+<br />
' ).<br />
the area. (ROE's FY 1987 budget request itself states that 1..<br />
the lack Of seismic upgrades could lead to an M-Reactor<br />
0.<br />
meltdown.)<br />
C<br />
^.<br />
Possible core overheating due to release of Nlgner energy<br />
stored in the cooler portions of the graphite core and<br />
reflector.<br />
E. The absence of tested emergency planning for serious accidents<br />
releasing radioactivity beyond the <strong>Hanford</strong> Reservation.<br />
9. Other problems, such an lack of control room habitability<br />
during an accident, redundant cables routed through the same<br />
spreading room and subject to fire, broken valve parts caught<br />
in the cooling system, and lack of adequate neutron monitoring<br />
equipment.<br />
9<br />
Q<br />
0 0)<br />
CD<br />
fp<br />
d
, m<br />
6<br />
jp.3<br />
^ ^5<br />
t F f #^ ?Y -J<br />
05'7 057<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
Page Beer.<br />
duL 1 d M 6067<br />
Fags Eight<br />
RECEIVED WEAL<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
2<br />
DOH has now abut down the N-Reactor, because 3 former welding<br />
inspectors had falsified their credential. and Another 8 welding<br />
inspectors were incorrectly given passing grades on written exam..<br />
If that is enough to make DOH skittish about operating the plant,<br />
then it should be closed permanently, right now. when the House Of<br />
C G Representatives considers appropriations for <strong>Hanford</strong>, probably in<br />
..left late duly, I will offer an amendment to cut off funds for operating<br />
the N-Reactor.<br />
This Waste is not only dangerous to people, but it makes <strong>Hanford</strong> a<br />
prime target for attack by terrorists.<br />
3.4.3.1<br />
3.4.3.7<br />
Nor does the federal government's track record of predicting<br />
My Subcommittee hoe - yet to closely examine the PORE% plant,<br />
but that is high on our agenda of areas to pursue.<br />
safe operation at <strong>Hanford</strong> warrant confidence. In 1959, the manager<br />
of <strong>Hanford</strong> facilities testified before a congressional committee<br />
N<br />
THE DANGERS OF HANFORD'S MILITARY RADIOACTIVH WASTE<br />
that the single-walled tanks were expected to last for 100 to 200<br />
years. But they had already started to leak, and now 60 of the 149<br />
tanks are either confirmed or probable m leaker.. m A 1953 O.S.<br />
2.2.12<br />
Geological Survey report, which had pointed out that the tanks were<br />
The HIS blandly asserts that all of the military radioactive<br />
potentially hazardous, was classified by the Atomic energy<br />
3 .4 m 3. 1<br />
waste at <strong>Hanford</strong> can easily be handled to prevent any threat to the<br />
public. But the discussion is incomplete; there is no mention of<br />
the fact that, as Dr. Taylor testified before my Subcommittee r the<br />
Inventories of dangerous isotopes in shallow burial are equal to<br />
Commission (MCI and not published until 1972. In 1968, the AEC<br />
also classified a highly critical report by the General Accounting<br />
Office.<br />
the that resulting from the explosions of several thousand one-<br />
In the 19605, AEC had to dig up trench Z-9 at <strong>Hanford</strong>, which<br />
megaton nuclear Weapons . , According to Dr. Taylors<br />
contained about 100 kilogram. of plutonium. An AEC report<br />
concluded that intrusion of water into the trench could have<br />
resulted in m e nuclear chain reaction.' It was probably such a<br />
3.4.3.8
1<br />
t<br />
6<br />
05'7 05'7<br />
Page Nine<br />
RECEIVED Duc-RL<br />
JUL 161986<br />
685 -1<br />
19MDIVISION<br />
page Ten<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL141986 pn57<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
00<br />
W<br />
3.3.2.1<br />
chain reaction or chemical explosion that caused the Eyshtym<br />
disaster in the Soviet Onion.<br />
THE LINK TO COMMERCIAL HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL<br />
The <strong>EIS</strong> clearly displays bias toward leaving in place and<br />
trying to "stabilize" the waste now in the 149 single-walled tanks<br />
L by filling the tanks with gravel or sand, covering the area with 18<br />
.feet of rock and dirt, and erecting signs on the surface saying,<br />
literally, "Don't Dig Here." This bide is reflected in thaw<br />
1. bOE'. May 1986 Environmental Assessment. for the 1 sites<br />
Selected for characterization as the first repositoty for<br />
3 .3.2.1 commercial high-level radioactive waste (<strong>Hanford</strong>, Yucca<br />
Mountain, Deaf Smith) do not mention a-need to accommodate<br />
waste retrieved from the single-walled tanks..<br />
rather than "stabilization" in .place.<br />
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 specifically-requireS all .t<br />
high-level waste to be disposed in deep geologic repositories. w2 2.4.1 . 4<br />
claims It need not follow these instructions for waste that may be<br />
difficult to retrieve. Thus, it appears that DOE efforts on<br />
defense waste and commercial waste are either uncoordinated, or it n<br />
is Politics as usual getting in the way of the best scientific 2.4.1.2<br />
decision.<br />
What happen. if the vast.$ are-commingled and are disposed of<br />
at a high level repository located at <strong>Hanford</strong>, but defense ..etas<br />
meanwhile continue to. be generated at a high rate? Where Hill the<br />
addlt.onal waste be placed when the <strong>Hanford</strong> repository I. fall? It<br />
will have to be transported somewhere, which means the<br />
transportation issue will .have to be dealt with, either now or<br />
later. zero transportation of nuclear wastes from <strong>Hanford</strong> is not 3.4.2.2<br />
an option.<br />
3. 3. 2 . 1<br />
2. DOE's unlawful decision to cancel work on selecting possible<br />
sites for a second repository was based upon a conclusion that<br />
a second repository would not be needed until about the year<br />
2020. But it would be needed sooner, if all high-level<br />
radioactive waste at <strong>Hanford</strong> were W receive geologic disposal<br />
WHAT TO DO WITH THE EXISTING WASTE<br />
The fact that DOE can even consider leaving some of the high-
.3<br />
4-4<br />
d d e<br />
^<br />
f iy 4 8 V<br />
05'7 057<br />
Page Eleven<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 1986 tb5^<br />
Page Twelve<br />
VIM DIVISION J<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1 4 1986 Lull<br />
VIM ,DIVISION<br />
C<br />
A<br />
2.4e 1. 6<br />
level radioactive Waste in place is astounding. First of all, it's<br />
illegal. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 specifically<br />
requires deep geologic disposal for high-level radioactive waste,<br />
Whether military or civilian. Second, it seems hypocritical to<br />
leave the military high-level waste in questionable tanks near the<br />
surface, When all commercial high-level waste is to be buried in<br />
2, 2 . 7 deep geologic repositories. Why is it acceptable to leave the<br />
military waste near the surface, when we find it so necessary to<br />
bury the commercial wastes in deep repositories?<br />
Tank Waste -<br />
I believe . that the Waste in the double-walled tanks should be<br />
extracted, solidified, and shipped to a geologic repository not at<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong>. DOE should not leave the waste in the single-Walled tanks<br />
nor at this time procede With its half baked and potentially<br />
dangerous $7 billion plan to cut open these tanks and dig out the<br />
sludge arN salt-caked Wastes. There is now no good method for<br />
imolati.g this waste from the environment. We can only further<br />
study possible technologies, While in the meantime creating no new<br />
3.3.5.1<br />
waste.<br />
The eventual treatment of the waste in the single-walled tanks<br />
may be costly. In testimony before my Subcommittee on June 9, Ben<br />
Rusche of DOE told me that the o nly reason <strong>Hanford</strong> ranked so low in 3.1.4.5<br />
DOE 'a site-ranking methodology (which was then ignored) was the<br />
cost of building the repository and transporting the wastes to the<br />
site. Even thoug h . the costs of the .<strong>Hanford</strong> site might be more than<br />
those for other sites, he stated--and Claimed the National Academy<br />
of Sciences backed him up on this--that cost should not determine<br />
the final ranking/ that there a re more important factors than cost<br />
in deciding where to permanently repose these dangerous wastes.<br />
Now, while I disagree With Mr. Rusche's assertion that cost alone<br />
put <strong>Hanford</strong> in last place (DOE's methodology ranked <strong>Hanford</strong> last in<br />
other respects as well), I agree that dollar cost should not guide<br />
the disposal decision. Yet cost appears to be an overriding factor<br />
in the military waste <strong>EIS</strong>. .DOE seems to be pursuing the cheapest<br />
route here, yet disregards cost when deciding what to do with<br />
commercial wastes.<br />
Other Wastes<br />
The post-1970 transuranic waste should be shipped to the Waste<br />
Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico, which Was built for<br />
that purpose. But further study is apparently required before DOE<br />
can deal with the older transuranic Wastes dumped into the ground.<br />
3.1.3.25
0<br />
z<br />
05'7 05'7<br />
Page Thirteen<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1 4 1986 6659.<br />
page. Fourteen<br />
WM OIVISION<br />
heCEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1 4 1986<br />
0661<br />
VlM DIVISION<br />
DO<br />
M<br />
3.1 . 2<br />
.5 The strontium and cesium waste capsules Should be shipped to the<br />
geologic repository.<br />
: OTHER PROBLEMS<br />
I see other. problems with the <strong>EIS</strong>: -<br />
level.•<br />
- -<br />
2.4.1.8<br />
1. It redefines some high-level and transuranic waste as 'lowr^<br />
2 .4.1. 8 2. It then ignores the significant volumes of low-level<br />
radioactive wastes, including those previously defined a<br />
high-level or transuranic.<br />
It Mails to plan for disposal of the old reactors at <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
0'<br />
-2.3.1.14<br />
previously operated for military purposes.<br />
6. It merely mentions possible technologies for further<br />
processing of the high-level waste to take place after the<br />
O<br />
3 .1. 8 .2<br />
decision is made on .which. alternative to adopt. These<br />
technologies. such as grout and vitrification, should be<br />
discussed in the <strong>EIS</strong> itself.<br />
S. It assumes that the existing facilities will operate<br />
flawlessly, with no accidents.<br />
1<br />
6. it fails to consider the hazardous chemical content of the 2. 3.1.14<br />
waste.. - 3.1.6.1<br />
7. It treats the Columbia River as a Sewer system, failing to<br />
3.2.4. 1<br />
account for harm to fish and downstream user... it also<br />
3,5.6.6<br />
9 5 6 . 6<br />
ignores potential flooding and absence of upstream dams.<br />
CJ<br />
6.. It neglects the effects of range fires and subsequent wind 3.5 .1. 100<br />
erosion of oil.<br />
9. It disregards that the <strong>Hanford</strong> Reservation is part of lands 2.4 . 2. 2<br />
ceded to the Yakima Indian Nation.<br />
10. 'Washington state authorities believe that ROE has repeatedly<br />
and systematically misused references to scientific 4.1. 10<br />
literature.<br />
I intend to address some of the.. other problems in By written<br />
comments in August. '
• M<br />
co<br />
M<br />
^1<br />
- RECEIVED DCE-RL<br />
Orville F.HRLMD.<br />
Stetsmt of Oreille F. 9111 JUL 1 4 1986 Q0.<br />
COneuOmM—Nuclei Fuel CXls RECEIY U LGE-RL page two<br />
1610 S.E. 127th Avenue July lo, 1986 WM DIVISION<br />
Vancouver. WA 98684 JUL 14 1986<br />
Telephone 12061269203 4-<br />
^TLS^ in the final malyaia as the Shover sltarh tivs.<br />
WMDIVSION<br />
Jnyy 30, 1986<br />
Angry, frightened, fwtafeN, mai mieinfo.ei cltiaem pr ovide the<br />
3fAT&59f P IRKffilt7ID AT THE<br />
DvpaxEigaa ,-mss Vt a tough audlmma, be pep t^^ ipfo ti.<br />
D. 6. D WF MX rf OF gHHPOT HUHIHO<br />
ON<br />
(( YJ,s. .n M.Q+..eryi m 'la^dµS^.J<br />
rr tLIWP DEPtil9H 1dSPg'i1ISP03V.<br />
getM1arlrirao3ZeSieib - cult. K^You va37:, mE E<br />
^r r-j<br />
to shat others lees amid or implied here I believe pleed that the pWlis, be patient ¢rut uMeretand a your effort..<br />
that the nl ^ of p.e r,, amt its predeeaewn have dame an eceeptabley<br />
if not'msewtuts" and Job in handlin, and hbariw sadioeatin 1^ , A^yQ<br />
2.3. 2 . 12 sestaa at <strong>Hanford</strong> aui other defers site..<br />
The Depertmont Sato be cme emb'd for its cmodbe s, and effort. to<br />
0<br />
— NA -^"<br />
meamh oat albrmtivee for the dleppael of sieting ®C flrtuie redloantis C6vtir. ^<br />
setae st <strong>Hanford</strong>. to publielrm shoes alteruslives, mod to SdILSit c setts,<br />
a i aoggarbl. oa th.. alternatives. 1Ta Deperlment has a g.og artuan m^9 3<br />
` s<br />
task in sales" an acoeptoble'ai sortable pressor or pn6eeee s, for the<br />
disposal or these vaataa, 4°<br />
A helsume in my aastal mod health pnteatlm, radiation mpasn<br />
2 . 2 a 4<br />
mad safety ressurea for aorta., ai coet spanditarea and aMatim... as<br />
2 .2.11<br />
a met. Orr ratim simply cemot afford to Submit to unreseamable demand.<br />
much " cmvar" the <strong>Site</strong> book to a 'pristine" State Wen then im So mach<br />
d®end for use or linited resSoveaa. Sack a .Shctaroe as ..is" nor<br />
nation ,. poor - yes, and m en the rM-. poor -, eleem p of toric .sate<br />
Sit., funding mceasaiy defense aotimitiea., and the like, moat tetra<br />
p riority peer -iM Smllmitml mtpsdit ems for estamies motisma Wem the<br />
identinex bssflts 1te ®all, pather, only a belmu,e shearing the health<br />
2.3.2.12<br />
mW safety -of the public Sh ould be aecaeeary or retained. phony I heiiva<br />
mama madtflcatisn of the combimd alte.ative, it not the .met elt>aktls<br />
3.3.3.1 describe d In the temft 9rvin®entmh IMett Statement, should W selects,
9<br />
ra<br />
am BTi:rif<br />
;.^.EiVc^ Cc-RL [oaulnron^r ,1^. ^;,deFy<br />
eUL 141986 a ',3y H!/<br />
VVM DIVISION 6 Sq /Zzo^ /5(J" ^ 52%<br />
Pl/Pg xc1, 0/L 9720'/<br />
RECEIVE) COE-RL<br />
JUL 141986.<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
TESTIMONY OF PORTLAND CITY COMMISSIONER NIKE LINDBERG<br />
ON THE V. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
DEFENSE WASTE D<strong>EIS</strong> PAGE 2<br />
IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE DISPOSAL OF HANFORD DEFENSE WASTES<br />
YOU NAY BE ABLE TO PERSUADE SOME PEOPLE THAT PUMPING PLUTONIUM<br />
IN THE OREGON PUBLIC HEARING.<br />
RIGHT DOWN INTO THE WATER TABLE THAT FEEDS THE COLUMBIA RIVER IS<br />
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION AUDITORIUM,<br />
SAFE, BUT YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE LARGEST MUNCIPALITY<br />
JULY 10, 1986<br />
ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER. WE WILL NOT STAND FOR IT.<br />
2.3.1.12<br />
MEMBERS OF THE HEARING PANEL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GOOD AFTER-<br />
THE CITY OF PORTLAND AND ITS CITIZENS HAVE STATED MANY TIMES THAT<br />
NOON. IAN CITY COMMISSIONER MIKE LINDBERG OF THE PORTLAND CITY<br />
THEY ARE VITALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS UPSTREAM. A<br />
3.2.6.1<br />
00 2.3.1.12<br />
V<br />
2.3.2.10<br />
COUNCIL. I AN HERE TODAY TO MAKE THREE MAIN POINTS REGARDING<br />
YOUR DRAFT <strong>EIS</strong>. FIRST, YOUR WORK TOTALLY NEGLECTS THE ECONOMIC<br />
AND PUBLIC HEALTH EFFECTS ON THE CITY OF PORTLAND, THE LARGEST<br />
DOWNSTREAM POPULATION CENTER. SECOND, YOU HAVE PRODUCED SUCH A<br />
SEVERELY FLAWED AND INCOMPLETE PIECE OF WORK THAT IT SHOULD BE<br />
RAPIDLY INCREASING NUMBER OF PORTLANDERS ARE CRITICAL OF THE V.<br />
3. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OPERATION OF HANFORD'S N-REACTOR, ARE<br />
WORRIED ABOUT THE STORAGE OF EXISTING DEFENSE WASTES, AND ARE<br />
ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO HANFORD BEING DESIGNATED THE NATION'S ONLY<br />
CIVILIAN NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY. THE WEEK OF JUNE 16-EOTH WAS<br />
2.1.1<br />
2.4.1.5<br />
3.2.6.1<br />
THROWN OUT AND STARTED OVER. THIRD, THE STATE OF OREGON, WHICH<br />
COULD BE DISASTROUSLY AFFECTED BY THE CONTINUING UNSAFE STORAGE<br />
OF LEAKING RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD, DESERVES MUCH MORE THAN<br />
THIS ONE PUBLIC HEARING.<br />
PORTLAND IS THE LARGEST CITY DOWNSTREAM OFHANFORD'S DEFENSE<br />
WASTES. IT, AND OTHER CITIES AND FARMS ALONG THE COLUMBIA RIVER<br />
'HANFORD AWARENESS WEEK' IN PORTLAND AND INCLUDED, AMONG MANY<br />
CIVIC EVENTS, A CITY CLUB ADDRESS ON WHY WE CAN'T TRUST THE V.S.<br />
D.O.E. TO SAFELY STORE RADIOACTIVE WASTE.<br />
THE PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL HAS PASSED A NUMBER OF RESOLUTION$ ON<br />
HANFORD. ON MARCH S. 1903. WE OPPOSED HANFORD BEING MADE A<br />
FEDERAL REPOSITORY AND REOUESTED THAT CONGRESS GIVE OREGON THE<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.1.1<br />
2.3.1.12<br />
GORGE, COULD BE ECONOMICALLY RUINED OUT IF YOU CONTINUE TO STORE<br />
NUCLEAR WASTE USING INADEQUATE METHODS THAT CONTINUE TO LEAK<br />
SAME RIGHTS AS WASHINGTON STATE. IN APRIL 1983, I DEMANDED,<br />
BEFORE CONGRESSMAN WEAVER'S COMMITTEE. THAT OREGON RECEIVE MONEY<br />
SLOWLY INTO THE RIVER. YET YOUR DRAFT CONTAINS ONLY 3 PAGES ON<br />
TO STUDY WHAT YOUR UPSTREAM WASTE REPOSITORY I9 NOW DOING TO US<br />
3.2.6.4<br />
'SOCIOECONOMICS." AND ALL OF THAT IS ON THE AREA IMMEDIATELY<br />
SURROUNDING HANFORD. GENTLEMEN. THAT SIMPLY WILL NOT DO.<br />
AND HOW IT MAY EFFECT PORTLAND'S ECONOMIC LIFE IN THE FUTURE.<br />
JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO I WAS GLAD TO SEE THAT THE GOVERNOR OF<br />
OREGON HAS FINALLY BEEN FIT TO JOIN THIS GROWING CHORUS.
a a 3 aS 4 $<br />
059<br />
RECEIVE. DOE-RL<br />
JUL I A 1986 ocs`7<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
IRECENEL, DOE-RL<br />
aUL 14 1986<br />
WM DIVISION czs<br />
DEFENSE WASTE D<strong>EIS</strong> PAGE 3<br />
DEFENSE WASTE D<strong>EIS</strong> - - PAGE.4<br />
ON MARCH 14, 1986. THE CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED<br />
RADIOACTIVE. OTHER STATES OR .NATIONS MIGHT REFUSE TO BUY THEIR<br />
DO<br />
DO<br />
2.5.6<br />
2.3.1.12'<br />
3.2.6.4<br />
SENATOR HATFIELD'S DEMAND FOR AN INDEPENDENT AND EXPEDITED U. S.<br />
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROBE OF THE N- REACTOR, ON MAY 20,<br />
1986. I ASKED THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES TO PUT SCIENTISTS<br />
AND ENGINEERS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR SAFETY ON ITS PANEL<br />
EXAMINING THE .SAFETY OF THE N-REACTOR AND NAMED A NUMBER OF<br />
SUCH PROFESSIONALS. AND JUST LAST WEEK 'I SENT A LETTER TO<br />
CONGRESSMAN JIM WEAVER SUPPORTING HIS AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT THE<br />
.EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS ON OPERATION OF THE N-REACTOR UNTIL CONGRESS<br />
HAS HAD AT LEAST 120 DAYS TO CON5IDER THE RESULTS OF THE O.O.E.-S<br />
SAFETY STUDIES AND THOSE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.<br />
WHY DID THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THESE RESOLUTIONS? BECAUSE THE<br />
FINANCIAL LIVELIHOOD OF PORTLAND. ITS BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS.<br />
COULD BE TOTALLY DEVASTATED BY AN ACCIDENT OR LEAK OF RADIOACTIV-<br />
ITY INTO THE COLUMBIA RIVER. THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT HELPS US TO<br />
PUT REAL NUMBERS ON THE VERY BAD ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF<br />
WIDESPREAD RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION AND I5, FRANKLY. A TOPIC<br />
WHICH YOUR FLAWED HIS SHOULD HAVE STUDIED IN DETAIL IN ITS THREE<br />
VERY THICK VOLUMES. HOW CAN YOU IGNORE REGIONAL ECONOMIC COSTS?<br />
THROUGHOUT THIS REGION, THE COLUMBIA RIVER IS DEPENDED ON FOR<br />
IRRIGATION. SHIPPING, INDUSTRY AND RECREATION. A CONTAMINATED<br />
RIVER COULD PREVENT FARMERS FROM IRRIGATING THEIR CROPS, OR. IF<br />
HARVEST. RECENTLY.- WESTERN EUROPEAN NATIONS REFUSED TO BUT ANY<br />
3.2.6.3<br />
FOOD5TUFF3--INCLUDING GRAIN, VEGETABLES. HEAT OR MILK--FROM AN<br />
AREA WITHIN 640 MILES OF CHERNOBYL'S. N- REACTOR.<br />
WHAT IF PEOPLE REFUSED TO BUY OUR FOOD BECAUSE A WASTE LEAK AT<br />
HANFORD MADE THEM WORRY ABOUT EATING POSSIBLY RADIOACTIVE WHEAT?<br />
NOW MUCH MONEY WOULD THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST LOSE? IN 1984 THE<br />
THREE STATES OF WASHINGTON, IDAHO. AND OREGON HARVESTED 31.1<br />
BILLION WORTH OF WHEAT AND OTHER FOOD GRAINS. THIS BILLION<br />
DOLLAR HARVEST GREW WITHIN A 640 -MILE RADIUS OF HANFORD'S WASTE<br />
STORAGE ANDN-REACTOR. SO WE COULD LOSE A BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR<br />
IF PEOPLE THOUGHT THE COLUMBIA WAS BECOMING RADIOACTIVE AND 3.2.6.3<br />
PRODUCING RADIOACTIVE GRAIN.<br />
THE VALUE OF ALL OTHER CROPS GROWN AND SOLD FROM OUR REGION IH<br />
1984 WAS 33.3 BILLION. THE TOTAL OF ALL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS, SUCH<br />
AS MILK AND MEAT, THAT YEAR WAS 32.6 BILLION. SO THE GRAND TOTAL<br />
VALUE OF JUST ONE YEAR OF PACIFIC NORTHWEST AGRI- BUSINESS IS 37<br />
BILLION. OMITTING SUCH LARGE SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS FROM YOUR<br />
DRAFT <strong>EIS</strong> FLAWS IT 30 MUCH THAT IT BECOMES TOTALLY USELESS A3 A<br />
3.2.6.3<br />
DOCUMENT FOR NAMING RATIONAL DECISIONS. THE NUMBER OF SUCH<br />
OMISSIONS MAKES YOUR DRAFT <strong>EIS</strong> HIGHLY SUSPECT AND THEREFORE. NOT<br />
CREDIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.<br />
3.2.6.3<br />
THE U.S. D.O.E. WARNED THEN TOO LATE THAT THEIR WATER WAS<br />
WHERE IN YOUR WORK ARE THE OTHER VALUES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER?
aw<br />
RECEIVED COE-RL<br />
JUL 1 A 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
me<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1 4 1986<br />
0659<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
m<br />
DEFENSE WASTE D<strong>EIS</strong><br />
PAGE S<br />
DEFENSE WASTE D<strong>EIS</strong> PAGE 6'<br />
Co<br />
ko<br />
YOU HAVE FAILED TO INCLUDE THE ENORMOUS COSTS OF A POSSIBLE LOSS<br />
OF SHIPPING IF EXPORTS DRVED UP AND THE COSTS TO HUNDREDS OF<br />
INDUSTRIES OF LOSING THE RIVER AS A SOURCE OF WATER FOR THEIR<br />
3.2.6.1 MANUFACTURING PROCESSES. RECREATION, INCLUDING L<strong>EIS</strong>URE ACTIVI-<br />
TIES ON THE RIVER SUCH AS BOATING, FISHING, AND WINO-SURFING,<br />
SUPPORTS MANY SMALL BUSINESSES AND PROVIDES THOUSANDS OF JOBS.<br />
YET NO WHERE IN YOUR DRAFT <strong>EIS</strong> DO I FIND ANY MENTION OF THE<br />
POSSIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS TO TOWNS ALONG THE RIVER IF VACATIONERS<br />
FAILED TO VISIT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE RIVER WAS RADIOACTIVE.<br />
TOURISM NOT ONLY PROVIDES AN ANNUAL CYCLICAL INCOME TO OUR CITY<br />
AND TO THE REGION BUT ALSO EDUCATES BUSINESSPEOPLE ABOUT OUR<br />
SPLENDID ENVIRONMENT. THEY KNOW THAT BEING ABLE TO WORK IN A<br />
o<br />
3.2.6.8 CITY THAT SITS ASTRIDE THE CLEAN WILLAMETTE AND COLUMBIA RIVERS,<br />
p /^<br />
AND WHICH IS ONLY ONE HOUR BY CAR FROM THE OCEAN AND THE MOUN-<br />
TAINS, CAN SERVE AS A MAGNET TO ATTRACT AND KEEP A SKILLED AND<br />
EDUCATED WORK FORCE. YET NO WHERE IN YOUR DRAFT DO I FIND ANY<br />
ATTENTION TO THE POSSIBLE COSTS OF LOSING THESE VALUABLE DRAWING<br />
CARDS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND NEW JOBS.<br />
MY .SECOND MAJOR POINT IS THAT YOUR DRAFT <strong>EIS</strong> IS BO FLAWED THAT IT<br />
MUST BE TOTALLY REJECTED AS A CREDIBLE DOCUMENT. THE .DRAFT FAILS<br />
TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM .REQUIREMENTS OF AM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT<br />
STATEMENT REGARDING CONTENT SCOPE AND ACCURACY. ALSO. THE<br />
2 .3. 2 . 10<br />
EVALUATION PROCESS FOR THIS <strong>EIS</strong> WAS NOT IMPARTIAL.<br />
THEREFORE, I SUBMIT THAT YOU HAVE NOT YET PERFORMED AN <strong>EIS</strong> AND<br />
THAT YOU SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO START OVER.<br />
THE DRAFT FAILS TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING MAJOR ITEMS. THERE 13<br />
NO ALTERNATE SITE SELECTION, NO ALTERNATE "IN-PLACE •' DISPOSAL<br />
2.3.1.12<br />
PLAN FOR LOW-LEVEL WASTE. NO IDENTIFICATION OF THE SPEED OF<br />
2 ]<br />
MOVEMENT OF EXISTING RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION TO THE COLUMBIA RIVER. .3. 1.2<br />
AND ND INFORMATION ON THE RADIOACTIVE TOXICITY OF THAT EXISTING<br />
POLLUTION. THIS COMPLETE OMISSION OF ALTERNATIVES MEANS THE<br />
DRAFT FAILS ONE OF THE MOST BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF AN ENVIRON-<br />
MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT... THE PRESENTATION OF A FULL RANGE OF<br />
PRACTICAL OPTIONS TO DO WHAT THE PROPOSING CORPORATION OR AGENCY<br />
WANTS TO DO BUT IN DIFFERENT WAYS OR LOCATIONS MORE ACCEPTABLE TO<br />
THE PUBLIC.<br />
THE CRAFT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING MAJOR ERRORS: IT FAILS TO<br />
RECOGNIZE LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES OR IMPACTS. IT ONLY<br />
2.3.1.2<br />
PRESENTS THE IMMEDIATE AND SHORT-RUN COSTS OF A NARROWLY-DEFINED<br />
PLAN. IT FAILS TO SHOW MAJOR GEOLOGIC FAULTS UNDERLYING THE<br />
PROPOSED SITE. IT FAILS TO SUPPLY THE BASIC DATA ON THE PROBLEM<br />
...THE AMOUNT. RADIATION LEVEL AND LOCATIONS OF ALL DEFENSE WASTE<br />
AT HANFORD. IT FAILS TO $HOW FUTURE WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOS-<br />
AL. YOU SIMPLY MUST DO MORE THAN THROW DIRT OVER IT IN OUR<br />
BACKYARD. OUR RIVER SYSTEM IS NOT A BOX OF BITTY-LITTERI<br />
THE EVALUATION PROCESS OF THE DRAFT FAILS IN THAT THERE ARE NO
w3<br />
aim 059<br />
RECENED DOE-RL<br />
JUL S 406 eoSq<br />
V M VISION<br />
DEFENSE WASTE D<strong>EIS</strong> PAGE 7<br />
IMPARTIAL EXPERT REVIEWS. WHERE ARE THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION$<br />
2 . `Q . 2.9 BY COMPETENT TECHNICAL PR05MSIONALS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF<br />
I<br />
2.3.2.9<br />
IO 2.5 .5 , J<br />
cz)<br />
2.4.1.5<br />
SCIENCES, THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. THE U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
PROTECTION AGENCY. AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION?<br />
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.. THIS IS A NATIONAL ISSUE AND SHOULD BE<br />
DEALT WITH AS SUCH BY THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC.<br />
GEOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL. AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCIES.<br />
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUING TO LET DOE<br />
.PROCEED<br />
INDEPENDENTLY. FOR WITH THIS DRAFT DOE HAS AGAIN PROVEN<br />
ITSELF INCOMPETENT. TO DO THE WORK.<br />
pY THIRD MAJOR POINT INVOLVES THE LACK OF A COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC<br />
INVOLVEMENT PROCESS FOR OREGON. AFTER YOU PUT IMMENSE QUANTITIES<br />
OF ATOMIC BOMB WASTE NEXT. TO OUR RIVER OVER A SPAN OF MORE THAN<br />
40 YEARS. WE DESERVE MUCH MOFF. THAN ONE DAY IN WHICH TO VOICE OUR<br />
DISSENT OF YOUR PROCESS AND TO REBUKE YOUR INSUFFICIENT ATTENTION<br />
TO DETAIL.<br />
DEFENSE WASTE D<strong>EIS</strong><br />
CONGRESSMAN RON WYDEN.<br />
RECEiYE7. DOE-RL<br />
Jul-1410 0051<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
PAGE B<br />
I BELIEVE THIS IS THE LEAST THAT PORTLANDERS AND THEIR FELLOW<br />
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CITIZEN$ HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT FROM THEIR<br />
LEADERS, THEIR GOVERNMENT AND FROM THE AGENCIES WHICH SERVE THEN.<br />
FINALLY, PORTLANDERS HAVE A RIGHT TO . KNOW THE WARES AND QUALIFS-<br />
2.3.1.12<br />
..CATIONS OF THE AUTHORS AND REVIEWERS OF ANY FUTURE REPORTS THAT<br />
CAN AFFECT THEIR LIVES IN . SUCH A MAJOR WAY. THE DRAFT ASKS US TO<br />
ASSUME MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES AS CITIZENS. CAN YOU NOT FIND<br />
COMPETENT PROFE55IONALS WHO WILL PUT THEIR NAMES ON THE COVER OF<br />
YOUR REPORTS AND ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR CONCLUSIONS?<br />
THANK YOU.<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
THEREFORE, I OBJECT IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS TO THIS<br />
$NODDY PIECE OF WORK THAT YOU ALLEGE TO BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
IMPACT STATEMENT. AND I CALL FOR COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION<br />
WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE ENTIRE HANFORD COMPLEX TO MEET LEGAL AND<br />
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS OF COMMERCIAL U. S. REACTORS<br />
AND HAZARDOUS WASTES. IT IS VITAL THAT HANFORD BE REQUIRED TO<br />
MEET ALL FEDERAL AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. AS PROPOSED BY
El<br />
i 1 1<br />
The OS ME moat ow0 up to the problems created by 40 year.<br />
iE;;EIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 1986<br />
WM DIVISION 66/ 6<br />
TESTIMONY OF<br />
DAN SALTZMAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN,<br />
OREGON HANFORD ADVISORY COMMITTEE<br />
of improper storage of military waste at <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
Heeding between the lines of the draft environmental impact<br />
statement (DHSS) there is a consistent suggestion that the<br />
"reference s cleanup alternative combines the "beet of all<br />
option. and provide. a practical level of long-term<br />
protection. That is a questionable assertion considering<br />
the significant quantity of high-level wastes (HIM) that<br />
Would be left in-place in aged and fatigued aingle-wall<br />
tank. under the reference alternative.<br />
3,3.3.1<br />
ON THE<br />
Many compelling reason. to remove all high-level wastes from<br />
tanks and trenches have been presented today.<br />
I-J<br />
HANFOHD MILITARY WASTE<br />
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
duly Y 1905<br />
But lets consider probably the moat obvious condition that<br />
should eliminate the reference alternative from further<br />
consideration: The potential for massive flooding and<br />
erosion of the the 200 storage area--the home of the<br />
high-level waste tanks.<br />
The likelihood of massive flooding of the Columbia River<br />
Basin dictates that all HLN wastes nuat be removed and<br />
entombed in a deep repository, not left in tanks a few feet<br />
beneath the surface or in trenches.<br />
PD555.00811<br />
- RECEIVED. DOE-RL<br />
JUL t?<br />
CDfe<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
3.5.6.7<br />
3,3.1.1<br />
PD555.007.1
M f.1<br />
r*, 1112<br />
Closer inspection of two of the department's own studies of<br />
flood potential sharply contradict the D<strong>EIS</strong> downplaying of<br />
flood risks.<br />
• [A) greet deal of re-working of sediment. -would occur<br />
within the Pasco Basin during a Bissoula flood... we<br />
conclude... that instability of at least the top meter<br />
of the [200 .real surface material would ocour...xe<br />
3.5.6.8<br />
In the B<strong>EIS</strong> summary is the statement:<br />
•The were is at an elevation that would not be reached<br />
by any reasonably postulated surface flood. The potential<br />
for flash flooding is remote.•<br />
Consider gmite likely that greater depth. of sediment<br />
would be involved in transportduring such a flood.,.-<br />
(2)<br />
So you see, the long-temn risk of a major :flood is a very<br />
real mm. A flood -- the mixing of water with waste --<br />
This confidence is undermined by the department'. two prior<br />
reports.<br />
Se the worst possible scenario in terms of causing<br />
widespread contamination of our Columbia River and of our<br />
agricultural lands.<br />
tp<br />
N<br />
In a 1983 Battelle asse....t of military waste issue., the<br />
authoxa conclude:<br />
The department moat not belie its own commitment to clean up<br />
the problem by advocating, an unsound option that would<br />
'A major flood would be nature-indnced...(and] could<br />
leave part of that problem in unsafe tanks or trenches.<br />
3.5.6.8<br />
exhume the waste by innundation of both waste storage<br />
areas. The occurrence of such a...flocd is estimated<br />
to be...very likely in 10,000 year..' (1)<br />
All high-level waste., defined according -toEPA's<br />
definition, moat be cleaned up, glassified, and buried in an<br />
acceptable deep geologic repository.<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
The impacts of such major flood on the buried waste are<br />
O assessed in a 1985 Rest State/Battelle report. In that<br />
3.5.6.8 report, we are introduced to the specter of the greet<br />
Missoula flood and its threat of erosion of the 200 storage<br />
area. According to the report:<br />
M55SA03.2<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL14" OO(o0<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
Finally, let an echo the need for a tangible good faith<br />
gesture from the department that will show Northwest<br />
residents that we are an the verge of action with respect to<br />
cleaning up a 40 year old problem, Oct more studies,<br />
research and the like. RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
PB555.009.3<br />
JUL 14 686 OQ bO<br />
VIM DIVISION<br />
2.2.1
.rte<br />
M<br />
OG1<br />
A fiscal year 1988 budget with funds for constructing a<br />
waste vitrification plant is but one sign of good faith.<br />
Coe ed is of Richard Betsey, M.D. regarding tM1e<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Environmental lepact Stateeenk<br />
[ a. Richartl Bel zey, a physician, a ember of the Portland Chapter of<br />
PM1 ysi ci anz for cf al Rnp pna ibf city antl a mambar of the Oregon Department<br />
of Energy r <strong>Hanford</strong> SO Advisory Committee.<br />
We are tired of promises that are not backed up with a<br />
conu.LtmenY of resource.. To talk about cleaning up the<br />
military waste on one hand, and to than request FY 198 7<br />
budget authorisation to construct additional surface ponds<br />
2 . 2. (^ 9 in which . to dump PUREX and N-Reactor racioactive liquids is<br />
a slap in the face to a region that has borne, for the sake<br />
11o 4 tile, First, to c vey sa go cif i awns' reaction to the Defense<br />
Waste <strong>EIS</strong> 01 expressed. during o public information ...tin, sponsored Jointly by<br />
the US a ..... . of Energy and the. Greg.. DOE Advf.... Cbgo III.. do <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
A number of people x concerned that the agencies and Individualsrezponsib-<br />
1e for the development e and d unageeeat of nuclear defense...pan. production<br />
had at plan..d for. the. safe and pertinent tlisposal of the ft. u volume of high<br />
level radioactive Pastas associated with their production. furthermore, they<br />
were concerned that an important question, which they thaught should have been<br />
..led forty years ago, still needs to be ..had today, 'Doss continued productionof<br />
plutonium for nuclear weapons at <strong>Hanford</strong> or anywhere else any site in<br />
this country inc or decrease the security of the people of this country?'<br />
2.5.5<br />
W<br />
of national defense, the risk. fzom. improper waste storage<br />
Door over forty year...<br />
PD555.008.4<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 14 1996<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
Permanent and safe dis posal of the forty year accumulation of radioactive<br />
..at.argenerak ed during plutonium production and pDrifie ti.. fa r use i0<br />
eaponz is eOan.ti.1 because current 'temporary' storage sir ategiez,<br />
the 'No 6l sp meal Action- alternative, have been lead equate. There Is a high<br />
likelih oo d that these systems will continue to fail and it is avirtual<br />
ertai.ty that they will be unable to contain the high level nuclear .alms<br />
for the required tore. I cannot feel tonlidt a<br />
. that current and past<br />
activities and the knees r.eimactiv. rol e.... fro. the <strong>Hanford</strong> sit. have NOT<br />
at r wady been a 'ter eat to the :heal th of Gran,mxana. The tie Deparbent of<br />
Energy has tried to r s that M e'publfc health antl Oaf efy of<br />
individuals in the region have not been compromised but sa.. authorities<br />
have questi oned the assumptions on which their judgment I. based. In<br />
wading this environmental impact statement I am particularly struck by the<br />
inadequacy of infor ma tion about potential biologic effects of the<br />
alternatives for permanent tlisposal of radioactive Pastes resulting from<br />
plot eni um production at Nanf Ord. Consequently, the sl ateant is seriously<br />
fl ... d and should be expanded antl corrected before any further action is<br />
Considered.<br />
2.2.1<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
2.5.5<br />
REFERENCES<br />
(1)<br />
(2)<br />
Battelle Pacific NorthwestLaboratory. A........t of<br />
Ein le-Shell Tank Residual LS maid Iasssesat^pr<br />
te, Naeh n ton. Tune 9<br />
D E Contract r -AC<br />
ALO ..830.<br />
Battelle Pacific NorthwestLaboratory,Rent State Univarsity.<br />
Erosion Potential .from Nieaoula Floods in the<br />
Pasco Basin as m ton, Dcce et, OE orttzact<br />
D -AC -]bHL0 ludo.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-R IL<br />
JUL141996 ob66<br />
An expert panel [ netl with the long-term management of commercial<br />
.clear wastes r ended that the sa fest method would. be disposal In a dee p .<br />
geologic repository % This acs. z ea to he the safest Pay to deal with<br />
radioactive waste produced d 1 g the production of plutonium for nu leap<br />
capons. I bel that m 1 and disposal of all high level clear Paste<br />
fros the <strong>Hanford</strong> site and its storage a deep geologic repository Ss khB<br />
safest and most reassuring of the offered options.The engineering -solutions<br />
proposed in the 'En-Place Stabili.ati. and-Reference- alternatives involve<br />
unproven, technology which will have to ma intain its integrity for a<br />
thousands of years if it is 0pro tect the environment and proximal populations.<br />
This is unprecedented and it is likely that the technology will,<br />
or later, fail. What will be the impact on the people and the economy<br />
oe to 'region when high level radioactive .mast.% get into our wa ter and into<br />
the food chain] Will the c ..try's population, at that ties, be willing to<br />
invest their resources to deal with What let th en, only a regional problem?<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
PD555.009.1<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
In dealing with the heal th and safety of people in this region it is<br />
RECEPotJ DOE-RL<br />
Def.oEls - 719,86 Page d<br />
JUL 1.4 06<br />
90<br />
WM DIVISION
s 7 ., . a 0 41 9 7<br />
MOM K.<br />
ktk vc,i M1.ERL<br />
JUL 1 A SN D(p^2<br />
WM OIVi510N<br />
p<br />
'. =tr µµ le-1-4 iC '?fee ;r<br />
:fiicult to think about permanent disposal of these high level nuclear LA e¢dT6Q<br />
2.2.1 d pp[ A"^dTA<br />
wastes in cost-eifective terms. To think about sa y ing other people's money<br />
EXcL. wV r ^kE<br />
at the cost of potential health hazards to this region is very difficult. A NStGEAR AR,<br />
Cost effective analysis is only ap p ropriate when the same population has to .AS Aar A(}2FgfJ(. 0 a A Ems, pec6A6Ly rurUgna> e. ^e J<br />
2.2.3 carry the burden of cost-effective n e s e tradeoffs. It is ap P arent,. f r p m the ^ RO ° Kd 3°-Y O YeAm s F aM<br />
recent political des ded about the second geologic repository, that the F` n nptaraN F A bFFrn<br />
fir/SN^RE.T'3'^diA7/aA/<br />
rest of the country is not ready to have a nuclear dump in their backyard R M 7^,E EN d /ROMrpF NT a 1,od<br />
! $`ERKrivC C4.all• S An<br />
and would rather put<br />
it where no one lives, out here in the He st. He<br />
F°R 'Y/,6 mu NG T dny A.rd 76E __<br />
(: y--To.-(n T ^ d° R N'<br />
also know that <strong>Hanford</strong> and the other sites being considered for a deep . -<br />
geologic repository were chosen because people in the rest of the country<br />
AeRS .Aiks 2 A REAS T N
3 ^ a<br />
4 9 a<br />
DI<br />
OG3<br />
V v<br />
•F<br />
c<br />
N<br />
v<br />
Ln v-+ C<br />
0 OU<br />
0 c;<br />
V<br />
RECEIVED DOE.RL<br />
JUL 14 1986<br />
WM DIVISION bd bl u (y 10 1986<br />
U.S. rt e a .^ [ ¢ryy<br />
f+apFo( f+¢nringsa Por +(w;.d<br />
3076<br />
t^Q. NE -36t` ave,.<br />
!Pl<br />
Qo<br />
k kall OR 47z12<br />
/'11<br />
A^<br />
(^<br />
VOOd. 0.'F TQYn UOn. 1_\^ n0.'Mf 1S RJssel\ 1'(4Q'QY. Zm..<br />
Faorreawner her¢ ;p Por }land,, o-pA, lwv¢ f; veJ.^ip Yl.e<br />
Ga\u..b:a River ra^;u.. {y 10 yg wri.<br />
j{F.n^ 7cu ^.,r '}4¢ o^or }uvs. sy +v cow^w.er ar. `K.a PreP,Y(<br />
-6 56,t r xucle.r um.s}e •a/+- V+o-•.^r'cl.<br />
My c'—J'/ f,.. a'8' T "qc st rq+^rn.d Fro {wa m\loh<br />
wo-s' a.d^er`ua+e un^ aF{en cowtrdcctory . ^„ \e1Y eY cfowj'<br />
`l4.ink `floe overns.en} ar' n¢..x aped:... rani\y kn P,w wA {<br />
pr haw mu -}u+el[ 't" reoele. And worse %ey .7 not"<br />
k aw k ow -6 Han Ile %,;s 47 ( F ate ;de f UJQ<br />
atndergjxnd_ {5-a w. tcri¢..JLs tl. f > siFpl I, 54 .+'la+.<br />
ex;'itrQ ` here, 'Tb.;s rw;SRS tLe<br />
issue, of ia
a<br />
3.4.3.1<br />
2.1.1<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 1 4 M pdb0'<br />
063<br />
WMDIVI $^ ON P' 3<br />
ur;4yL.T.d;a} iw . haznrc(s, h1e h>d .Wr ia,s{s .F' r c^iadiow<br />
as1a.{;: jiGe cowsvR ^rncaf<br />
a». o-to;,1t-+ c Jrk 6 Role, e, s;.^.^+iy de>;7i. iC>t<br />
GCC;c\ew`5<br />
LL<br />
we..\d. .cccr.<br />
-11we leroac(er issue ,5 ((e ( •ducd o x wuc(e.f, tw.s{-e wIeick<br />
eer Po.\.rd{ec 't4.c er.lalea.. X 5-6rr ff. -T,, V..0E. .«d Arne<br />
r• ¢ne;es .,,,a sk- ..d lress `f(.e ;sswe aF redvoi w=.s{t<br />
2.5.6 .e skew zF ser..LXear akrgts i e4K!raffy<br />
ee , er y y .r {xec^ `Yne...,ae e:'.duce n^c6..<br />
5{<br />
Merl t S+it lir-a.. wa. seem {'o..<br />
We. Lea' wave .. wask-_ 40TT A- jgaSL't'•r^; Ir<br />
2.5.6 (11-V uAi dL gl,5e Nn k iks Ekaa,^rd. {i c;1e(y<br />
pt 01oSad.<br />
We also feel each action in the disposal process must not preclude further<br />
actions which might be desireabie for other aspects of the entire system. Furthermore,<br />
an adequate tracer and monitoring system should be established which should<br />
extend into the postclpsure period for a long time.<br />
One of our concerns is that the U.S. DOE must use the same environmental<br />
standards as the Nuclear Waste Policy Act intended and not bypass them under the<br />
Atomic Energy Act. Defense waste standards should comply with state and federal<br />
requirements to assure protection of .groundwater quality.<br />
League members agree that the solution should be as cost effective as passible,<br />
but the cast issue should not determine the choice of the disposal alternative. In<br />
that regard, we are gravely concerned about the tone of the draft <strong>EIS</strong> which seems<br />
biased against the geologic disposal alternative due to cost.<br />
In reviewing the draft <strong>EIS</strong>. and co mm ents of others, we concur with the states'<br />
of Oregon and Washington , requesting more information an the four alternatives proposed<br />
and inclusion of discussin g of the other 23 disposal methods not discussed.<br />
For example. Washington's Department of Social and Health Services Office of<br />
Radiation Protection in its draft review paper questions the reliability of the<br />
3.3.4.2<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
2.2.4<br />
3.3.1.2<br />
3.3.5.2
111:<br />
64 My<br />
League of Women Voters of Oregonduly 10, 1906 Page 2 006`(<br />
Testimony before V.S. DOE, Portland, OR<br />
Re: Draft <strong>EIS</strong> Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste<br />
multi-layer protective barrier system for the shallow burial sites. The concern<br />
is with water intrusion due to increased irrigation in the future or change in<br />
the water level of the Columbia River Basin from the removal of dams, or weather<br />
pattern changes such as an arid spell killing the vegetation on the barrier and<br />
wind removing the soil. Also, consider the tiny ant. Remember the song, 'Whoops,<br />
3 .5.1. 10 1<br />
there goes another rubber tree plant?" The Washington agency points out that<br />
already in two different locations in the 200 Area harvester ants and termites<br />
have burrowed into waste and resurfaced radioactivity.<br />
06.b(S^<br />
Aid f9P6<br />
to<br />
V<br />
3.5.6.40<br />
More data needs to be collected concerning groundwater flow and groundwater<br />
contamination risks due to activities over the very long term, such as seismic<br />
events, flooding, climatic changes, drilling far gas and other resources, and<br />
increased human and animal activity.<br />
We have concerns about the coordination of all facets of transportation of<br />
3 .4.2.24 wastes; such as lines of authority, responsibility, procedures, enforcement of<br />
regulations, routes, emergency procedures, funding of equipment, training of<br />
personnel, safety of equipment, enforcement of security measures, emergency<br />
stations, and risks due to hazardous weather, to mention same.<br />
The League of Women Voters has a deep concern over the recent decision to<br />
abandon the search for a second repository in the East. We feel it may "color"<br />
the decision to stabilize . in place the defense wastes at <strong>Hanford</strong> rather than<br />
removal to a repository. It could have a profound Influence on the decision to site<br />
3 . 3. 2. 1 the commerci al repository at <strong>Hanford</strong>. It could affect the design and size of the<br />
co mm ercial repository due to co mm ingling It is imperative that all of the ongoing<br />
production activit y s at <strong>Hanford</strong> producing wastes, as well as the "con-retrievable-<br />
low level, transuranic, and hazardous chemical wastes on the site<br />
be factored into the system and should be thoroughly discussed in an <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
Furthermore, the E IS must address the impact permanent waste disposal at<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> would have an the cultural activities of the Yakima Indian Nation and the<br />
2 . 4 . 2 . 1 other two affected tribes.<br />
2 .2.1<br />
Finally, the League of Women Voters of Oregon believes it is the responsibility<br />
of the federal government to take all the time, testing, resources, expertise, and<br />
discussion necessary to do the job right, because the social, environmental, and<br />
economic well-being of the region is at stake. The people of Oregon want to be<br />
assured that our agricultural, recreational, and industrial economy will continue<br />
to flourish- RECEWFL) DCE-RL<br />
Kristine Hudson, Presidenti UL 1 4 1986<br />
Portland, a97221 OR<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
Norma dean Gerund<br />
-Imalloia<br />
Re, .<br />
Mtn rBlvdk Force<br />
Lake Oswego, OR 97034<br />
c<br />
yQi n. rG:^t ?' A<br />
c ^/`pt<br />
G2.6^<br />
t c[*^iw^Y 2.5.6<br />
%<br />
yrsgA>
S,uir iup+f +e Y) ........ aen .... Yn l up in lM aY) Jaa>+ 6Naf -<br />
!ias e6g N 4 0 mr>eulwquga 84% vi olg uieaa¢a q plo+p*H' punm+w fu+<br />
ay ) 1. upa4) llu4lNi uC]<br />
r a.w} YI. "I..... tYnl ...... r Pe 1 e4Y 1 {1<br />
9 v^° 1, ^ •yal4n wn-vinld 4 0 eP++ine leup la¢u e4 1 Nwl% uea Y Iw1 uB 2 va - 'PUM-4 ryay+yya !^<br />
w a u egppp u! pone+6Rryx a ul Puea a+4> w pui a!1 'fOlala+etl a P1 aP (1 I ^. ^"<br />
xn lu0s n la wleauB] 4 a lyn ry p wf ep!aB an B+llu {B aanli Y.e+t^4.lY.p +q - -<br />
D aalws pavi NH se su+) tl X3ilpd .ya A.Paa aaya wpua ep<br />
>O'•'^p(r *Yaaia'?S<br />
iunin { e ya ul maa.f un aw<br />
° °^ a)a+w a+Y.. . .. pu 1 1P Y Ill a +B 4a -III + i. 'YPY - ^ ie .-a ap Jib a4a<br />
M<br />
Pe4a ++q I rp a Pp a ry Ba.}v q jgna Y0111'u acne 13<br />
ii NnY DJ d-w. ' t' rv a.p a >y q+¢Yd,<br />
Yp »nyr ayy % vlvp pv<br />
i P ua vu Iwc)um i b a • > a al q ] up i Y 11 a Lue A a<br />
lo p a+.w e a ISM9+r6 Dnad:ay ' pyy v J VY.Yd Pvra VDrmV Ypf YI' % PDDj<br />
T °. T i Z<br />
ae4> vs I lai Paa..l..)upaw . >U u01a1u 1.1eP all NivaYa - At+eu3' +p °'?d ^^° YDf YYNm jD nYnpe v-- l'+^jX g rt.q a {ryy$ry ay %<br />
:b0 ayA 'q... ...lams -yaln puaeur<br />
a PIV<br />
paiu0a .1 n P+B>ueH iw 11...`i0<br />
D % o!YZ 'tYVJD YnD .Tgbrpyua 5moti YDY} oyYDpm janaf<br />
a.aa+w algnz uvlll! w Zt + B aw Uapl.. ....Y3 iv • aa.0 . Jepu(L.<br />
nibJq aopVY Hasg % pYPy ft. Y46 Y/ YPp. aYVYS vpybvpyppm<br />
,.<br />
'p' .....H ..l'<br />
'n P--+ -P 11I l Yn .. i a Ry 9a..... yl ep J>... N p},<br />
•DYn>x i fir^%val 9ryDaY1v 'M1DyJ: YM<br />
pay aP * DPa Pv V YDf Yv Y % p odd o<br />
a T"W Pl P 4'H<br />
P v Pep a .u¢N a P a.ya P1.11 cue am<br />
a.6.4a upa..::V a4 rvP+•r'w^QfiP]. Y^'Dm Dr/1<br />
>p iup}TdYnv!p7, Vf'b1<br />
Yil eYY . 4> . a9 i.+tl [uliwa ..,I ......<br />
'-H LTiZ°^<br />
lja+<br />
^J^ a)9 2 /r{'D'YrgypO(/B 1ra'r(Y sY(/ •atDD aYD PYDjvpH<br />
nu9 >c Id a .a4 1 I- p Yl l gna 4. 1.. ..P r' q<br />
'. a<br />
J^ âapmq E prary o % pym ayY fivo vYopvaY e;wYYadiax<br />
av> a uW pu+u un a.. +p } ..... + ..luean..p Pe P{ LtepN - Wl<br />
.y iva+a vi fu l p +0i P a it -Pa eu uwauN qa Ba [ul.+.w<br />
:I+ay L 1 } p Ya P ± f , iuq P...PINBY ... P..N<br />
•^D^âY!.<br />
P,veuaH a CSii Ya t o wn!"'4a a+LaI.. ..+.gale ...... ^ ^v aHY fD ^ ^^ rrp Papaa a? PTn yD YanD'.n.Y<br />
i rvam Y%D<br />
Ba{B<br />
1 mDVM n vaEdB ao- o Pm % 1:iv a<br />
u aNal a +eya a.4i pue A l -M 'arn<br />
0461 .Ya Yi ¢+41<br />
Y( pi m c"'v YamOE^Yp<br />
Y u>bl P!w eys •.w } ePU ry.a u-F w SZ .41 u> p+v>u.H N+{ P...a U+ .Jaw<br />
D1v1^I S'p DYVapnav YD ]dvam<br />
Y°:lo°° 6q Vv, ^- YJVap o ° p^Ypq ay(w.r. • agpnb<br />
u ! pv:<br />
' âvv ply<br />
nli]+p !Ga+ {,] aa: n] uv a li . 'i'S atul 1. a.ya n. x .p<br />
Ypaxu atly f vayP/ ay w v; Y<br />
+a4i<br />
maY 3 H -WV nyx<br />
.ae y + {v a.B] AA..ma.0 a p.tpnf .9 . le pH<br />
11 P,<br />
up a[uf4awR Iv 41 1 4 .4a 1.4a q ( .Y.ln ul f+elJ ei d.e4. ! PN<br />
•jT aNy %°+P<br />
byaymq Tppn ayy yy}a<br />
LOV âue:/wmj â .A v<br />
.b -Wa1 VY 11.1<br />
0 P.. aany unpf .Y: ur s .nlN+n } ......HI UI .. .Zll.1 d puorry Pa... a<br />
aq prnpyD {ry)•lfjyJ >^^Z<br />
YD w ar(a TTp f TDDIp ory avva.DO wN dmp 4<br />
nr[<br />
E ° Z Z . e t<br />
..q fey .lav tl Y. ip Yal . Y y l •119na ya pi aiN ii.<br />
Ppp PayY P Yd Dzk J' D<br />
0 +4 -610". Peanea en+4 a ruvanle eanpO+a<br />
iV! Pa q a4 P -w flJ<br />
Iva faaB{{a a.Aiaeu3 Ip 'pay0yavaE aYp ". aaJapm Ypa(-.inv ao' yenaY a!Pp a nalgary ppjD L<br />
^itli0 . 4a +an.u.M w. ri+.. •YO V! ).41 .1 .145 ya1 . ' a al q.Ja a41<br />
R I lHI aJVHP VDE p Dp m Dyj 9p DY ]'jyjD pj'D^j}.rry yYp vYDVPnA' jR'Y10<br />
! P- -i+ ag ai .! 1-41 I.n{vN 1. n. ..!..Nw.. .4a m".+r ..... aBl• YDyY Vpwv+i'd'»ayj lapvn. jj'vya 1ryy'mDD ayY ]D J.<br />
1]++)a.<br />
E ° T ° Z<br />
p i Aa!1!9t iya Ai+.u3 +0 • >tl.0 0 4a anit 1{I w PY¢1Y.H am w *-Pa -J op jna JpYpd yE pv YD _{ v Ub '<br />
1. Fen+.Pun Nu u!a! I la.a utlsae+ax. ,Yvan etl eYa- Ba.a 0UB11LPPV •Vx f^ orv pb-advaD aVJ apN brii-ry aap am ana_.jary y<br />
rYpan ltl .4a anB1 I ntl r<br />
dfiiaT agvy yotl YY YIna<br />
' 'a! a aai+ s.19¢+tl .a+N LIV.^. pa .yi Nlvf+pa-.i<br />
7,.p am fe1 n Jr Ps 1'.' In. P•ddf VD ary afipryMb<br />
ru p cn l a 5.41 aiS Ba, ..a Y ] ( F w SN9 e41 Puv •NJiB+d<br />
rvVJ jjo pynDVa 1rym p0 YDBpJ jDD3 ayy VD paypaauAab^a)n<br />
auve.pm unp . p } w lu pi... s... .ulPetu .g Ba &Y1.[ . ,.p.=<br />
Pryovm aDpyy jp ppD¢ ypory eaYDVm janaj-ybyy aVY SIry.YPY<br />
- oavD frryp arty ary am pyn pyo •vu;rym Na'I'mv janaY-m%<br />
.Pfe. At.NH.ip.. q i.0 •ovvyyDU aVT jP TY^ °°i' J' fiPDaa'ro aivYS vDi'bu!4vpff .aivv5<br />
a4a ♦ +.a a+a.H •a P a + w P3 'H • .vf ZHb( Y( •uplaanPVad fY. PJawH<br />
.vp +aa anN fu .'aaap a4> .g Pln pw NN a.+naza N.w' -ae41.<br />
:yajjDH •YN<br />
pue rpemuu Al pa.+..avid .! A[.N3 +. • ata0 .4 1 1.4a ) Lqn. :,<br />
NOIHIM1I0 {VI°fl<br />
1 00 ZZ96. fDa b!n'w'pl4 'P!^I'Y+'!x<br />
.Y.l.a.e] eaa..d NadveM +NIanN ',RIYn. 3 ^^t lnf ass --u D a<br />
sr.lp a lala.H . 4 a 1r•++a+ae+ i Poi Neap .I-+w] .l .NU 11. ^ aalA3D wpP Wv DWvi' x<br />
.. N-7%Q ^'.^f_3^^7iJ. 1rrYD,r3 t• rva »yH.¢ •s 'n 'sc3NaYr•x »n<br />
NOISNIOMIM 996t °si ^I n. -<br />
.....laa.q<br />
L 900 9B9 e t ^nr a. aop . Y i.0<br />
tY l4.NYp ASYUBiY•M<br />
Jai -et +mf<br />
] 3 i p ....... • >YO .4a Aue. ! aul 'yDDlp vryabvH "v<br />
l2!•30^ a3AI3D3tl -<br />
Ila s w6 -m £a E'<br />
co<br />
m<br />
4190 990
9- n, a<br />
y<br />
067<br />
M&<br />
E D ID<br />
t? Indeed, it the 5 0 viet• wina to contaminate our lead l.wuNilTAYmy<br />
uwe would call it an acs of roes<br />
y ♦ '<br />
uFen 1 OPalowf and al.lain' of Elf.. iiae y E,puL'T Past<br />
radioactiv! reluu. fret <strong>Hanford</strong> , . Plutonium, pro duction L.Clubmat<br />
2.5.5 ':%o hue fFelNd ae eF! t^ewht of YHet Yi el 9H oat-Y}t }npY<br />
about <strong>Hanford</strong>. The Ilept. of EnvfY'+ cloak of.......Htdoeeepot<br />
diminish my Cf dcern, aimhc j .11y Yith t.i} a.YNtafarY }f faCD^t e+<br />
Uncluaitnd Controfwd thelear lwfwa l and .m .te ll byl;mn d f, x flg .f-<br />
Cast. a1 EnegY.<br />
1 net content - OG!Fr<br />
that the 0.". of EnerlY rim Elḍ OT16 is<br />
radiation . standard. ter <strong>Hanford</strong>, but monitor.. itself .no s h. NEE_at.d<br />
to voluntarily rlPart at BaCla} rwlaaaae ai rldlatlbn.<br />
I a w n rmuUr.d b y the Sept.. of Eiariiii liident<br />
. 1 . 3 a, ... 1!tla n to red CYmm a ala i nuclear fuel: such as tha;(t4:ba '<br />
2 atarld the ra.aaltarY.f.A r rowA Ito PlYta nl wfatraattan:PraC}.a.-<br />
SurNY..aFi. ui 11 .wean the PURE% Alen[ and the L.", _'L.QVO.r<br />
Ee.aration slant yes will run her and M1ard Ior want' yeaef '
f 0 5<br />
068 • i1<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 18 1986 do67<br />
FA<br />
O 3.<br />
3<br />
national nucieer damp.<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
A cur s tiny of the history of nuclear activities at<br />
Hanfor d shows that review progre t .... d safe and esFlOnsi ble<br />
handling of that has been slow, punctuated rmy failed<br />
tech nology, a cid ants, cover-ups and most recently a blatent<br />
disregard for t the requa ants of the Nuclear Was to Policy<br />
Act w ich requires construction of a ..o..d M1i gh-level<br />
geologic rep o.. tvey.<br />
Further evidence of "business usual" at <strong>Hanford</strong> _<br />
all ..vi ous. For ti a ample, at the DOE Seattle workshop o .<br />
defense waste gracedi ng this hearing, a reprasentati — rrom<br />
Battelle, a DOE nt' attar, w<br />
an<br />
par ticipating the<br />
Env :al impacts Working oGroup glicly retl<br />
3.5.4.8 question s"cn-_ ing grtiunduat er trans part of radionuclides to<br />
the Colmb Columbia n He stated that there would be n impacts<br />
of c s if all he in question flawed into thet<br />
Columbi arR iv nrdue to the waste capacity to d"uts the<br />
.ate This eo:p art" w is roborated in ossin o 5..4.3 5<br />
-<br />
of the D<strong>EIS</strong> which addresses clong-term impacts of the No<br />
Disposal option.<br />
The belief by DOE and its contractors that virtually n<br />
5. heal on effect. wdala d cu<br />
under a re failure condition.<br />
2. 5 ht e of the Columbia R . capacity to dilute paste only.<br />
onfirms the public's fears eabout the intent and capability<br />
of the agency to responsibily address the hazards of nuclear<br />
waste.<br />
2<br />
The DOE hasbudgeted $5 million dollars for the current<br />
year for <strong>Hanford</strong> public relations.Ir dnically, previous<br />
5 . 5 public ralati dos .activity which attempted to allay public<br />
. condo n has duly intensified concern and angered citizens.<br />
No., well informed citizens have learned from experience to<br />
question every statement and every action taken by DOE and<br />
Its contractor s.<br />
Th' . nal all<br />
Must<br />
act ear rite programs<br />
al rem bility g•u lie i only ubl<br />
a path " to address p<br />
2.3.2.9 parlor[<br />
concern and distrust is with full and independent' technical<br />
and or .... mmatic reef ew. The casts of ..on state or agency<br />
oversight of the Defense Waste program 'must be assumed by the<br />
DOE Just as affected states and Indian tribes funded<br />
under the Nucl car Waste Policy Act.<br />
2.5 .5<br />
Continuation of the Defense Waste and other nuclear<br />
waste programs reliant upon current DOE methods of mollifying<br />
legitmate c a heinous breach of responsibility to<br />
ins citizens nand laws of the United States.<br />
Surely, the history of failed programs and proJects, and<br />
the degradation of the environment will continue unchanged<br />
until a....itmenx a made by the DOE to the discovery and<br />
2.5.5<br />
full di .closure of it. truths ing ucea tr<br />
ncI udi I the time and fund. - tuallycenecessary for safe sand<br />
permanent Ssol ati on.<br />
^or•<br />
.h^ 05}_<br />
we. S ♦•<br />
S1¢T'r0. C.^ u<br />
lsifa rneko.ze ov".`<br />
Sea+rle 1 ". 981 2<br />
11<br />
RECEIVED CCE-RL<br />
JUL 18 im eat<br />
WM DIVISION
$'a<br />
s<br />
r3 - 4 i<br />
S<br />
+ 'n 0 ^_1a<br />
e d ^-k 0<br />
Ea<br />
069<br />
069<br />
CD<br />
F—g<br />
RECEIVED 286<br />
6.<br />
JUL i U 1986 604A<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
FAGLI E O p %=k1EN V0'IEHS OP WASHINGTON<br />
IIINuonly l'Y.\TA Ism.Amba'rnesr aFAT1i8 N'aaH IXnION 9911] n1y ..<br />
Comments on the U. S. Department of Defense<br />
Draft Environmental Impact $Cut eme.t on Defense Waste<br />
July 15, 1986<br />
I an Ruth Coffin, President of the League of Women Voters of<br />
Washington. Our comments are on the subject <strong>EIS</strong> and on the<br />
overall waste disposal process entrusted to the Department of<br />
Energy.<br />
The League of Women Voters has benefited from a close and<br />
cooperative relationship . with the Washington State Nuclear Waste<br />
Board, the Office of Nuclear Waste Management, and the Nuclear<br />
Waste Advisory Council on which two of our members serve. We<br />
have also observed or participated in a variety of meetings and<br />
workshops relevant to defense waste and/or waste management at<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong>. We generally defer to and concur with the comments<br />
under preparation by the Nuclear Waste Board and undergoing<br />
extensive coordination within the state prior to the August 9th<br />
deadline for public Comment. While we recognize and expect that<br />
those draft review comments may be further refined, v e are most<br />
appreciative of the openness of our stare officials in<br />
circulating their issue analysis at public meetings throughout<br />
the state and for their receptivity to citizen viewpoints.<br />
One characteristic of the State of Washington's approach we wish<br />
you would emulate is an avoidance of the project-specific or<br />
programmatic app ... Ch to complex technical and policy issues<br />
which are frequently inextricably interrelated, .irrespective of<br />
the class of waste.. The general public really cannot cope well<br />
1 .1.1 with your compartmentalization of the issues. Likewise. some<br />
4<br />
failure to provide non - technical explanations, questions and<br />
n vex . and ocher tools gulch the nos-expert citizen ham the<br />
[!.e and fee It is to romprehand discourages unders ta nding and<br />
participation in this very important question of public policy.<br />
sl_<br />
RECEIVED DO E-RL<br />
dUL 18 1986<br />
Qdb9<br />
2<br />
VVfd DIVISION<br />
We of the League of Women Voters share the State of Washington's<br />
belief that thisprocess is ant the usual type of HIS review. We<br />
are emphatically not in the position of marshaling arguments<br />
against s major federal action. .Instead, we are all responsible<br />
p<br />
far helping you find ways co ensure through remedial measures and 2e 3. 2 . 12<br />
planning that <strong>Hanford</strong> defense wastes are disposed of safely and<br />
effectively. The League endorses the generally supportive stance<br />
of our state towards the USDOE's commitment to improve waste<br />
management at <strong>Hanford</strong>. In return, we urge you to cooperatively<br />
assist in meeting the program requirements of the Washington<br />
State team and, specifically, to anticipate and comply with the<br />
public's continuing need for timely, accurate and complete<br />
info] ma clan.<br />
With respect to the draft <strong>EIS</strong>, we have three major concerns to<br />
ezpce ss.<br />
(1) We urge you to revise the analysis in both scope and<br />
structure eo provide for ashe approach to an integrated<br />
3.3.5.8<br />
disposal strategy for both the radioactive and associated<br />
chemical wastes. The latter have not gotten the treatment their<br />
presence at <strong>Hanford</strong> and the hazards they present warrant. The<br />
State will outline in its review Comments an alternative<br />
technical concept for their handling. This concept should be<br />
Investigated by the USDOE.<br />
(2) We urge you to revise the analysis to expressly consider the<br />
technical Implications of presidential decisions: the first, to<br />
commingle defense wastes in a repository and the second, to<br />
Indefinitely postpone the se and reposito ry program and possible<br />
amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to increase tonnage<br />
limits. We share the concern that there may be an underlying<br />
2. 1 . 3<br />
assumption that the single eehell tank wastes are to be stabilized<br />
in place. Such an assumption has ramifications for the<br />
engineering desig n. and capacity of a deep repository. The State<br />
3.3.5.7<br />
of Washington questions if there is an sufficient volume of<br />
intact basalt in the Cohomset flow, and if the site may be 2. 1. 1
I<br />
1<br />
1 S<br />
O<br />
N<br />
069<br />
violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) million gallon or radioactive Waste Into the soil. It is against this<br />
MC<br />
RECEIVED CDE-RL<br />
JUL 18 1986<br />
040<br />
RECEIVED CIDE_RL<br />
WM ENVISION<br />
3<br />
Testimony of Senator Al Williamson The JUL 18 1988 00'/6<br />
Draft Environmental Impact Statementon<br />
Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Pasta<br />
_ WMDIVISION<br />
Seattle, Washington<br />
....liable in terms of geology and hydrology. If the State's<br />
2 . 1. 1 July 15, 1986<br />
concern proven warranted. site characterization would be<br />
inappropriate. From our vantage point, there 1s no question that<br />
this D<strong>EIS</strong> is the place to discuss these issues. It is also the<br />
Goan afternoon. My name fs Al Williams. I an the rhairmon of the<br />
Senate Energy and Utilities Committee in the state of Washington. I<br />
place to present and analyze the impact. of the alternative<br />
appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on the Draft<br />
approaches to post-closure monitoring is a deep repository. We<br />
2 . 1 .-/<br />
also expect the USDOE to fully evaluate I. thin D<strong>EIS</strong> has the<br />
Environmental Impact Statement on the disposal of foulard defense<br />
alternatives for permanent defense waste disposal might interfere masts.<br />
with or prevent effective technical monitoring of a repository,<br />
particularly in the earlier past-closure years.<br />
Me existing defense Waste an the Danford reservation is the result of<br />
(3) For the USDOE to adequately respond to these two areas of some 40 years or military activity conducted In the name of national<br />
concern. it will be necessary to make major revisions in the<br />
technical concepts in this D<strong>EIS</strong> and accompanying references.<br />
aecurity. As a result of these activities, 340,000 curies of radioactive<br />
That, In turn, compels circulation of a revised D<strong>EIS</strong> and adequate<br />
Iodine Were released during 1945; 5,000 curies of Iodine 131<br />
opportunity for review and comment<br />
by affected states and tribes.<br />
were Intentionally released in 1949resulting in a plume 200 miles long<br />
as well as the general public. We believe that, while the<br />
and 40 miles Wide over parts or eastern Washington and ovegcn; and In<br />
present D<strong>EIS</strong> contains much useful information, it is defective in<br />
scope and analytical content. Unfortunately, its logic has given 1951, a failure in some filters caused the release of 49,000 curies of<br />
rise to the belief that a decision may have already been made to<br />
-dioiodine aver several months. The early 197es brought the moat<br />
stabilise wastes in place. If this 1a the "preferred<br />
Widely known accident at <strong>Hanford</strong> When it Was discovered that some of<br />
2 . 9 alternative". it has not been so Identified. If the Department<br />
3 3J . L 1<br />
in not forthcoming about that intent, it will be viewed as a<br />
the single-shell tanks bad failed and released a pproximately a half a<br />
2.3.2.2<br />
2.3.2.10<br />
historical background that the Draft Environmental impact statement on<br />
defense Waste east be analysed. Consequently. I commend efforts by the 2.3.2.12<br />
United States Department of Energy to clean up the defense waste<br />
problem at Perform. It is clear that some action must be taken. 2.2.1
^.^'<br />
0 7® 0170<br />
RECE VEU DOE-RL<br />
RECEIVEt7 DOE<br />
-RL<br />
- JUL 18 1986<br />
(AT<br />
- WNI 18 LM ION<br />
Page 2 WMDIVISION Page 3<br />
6070<br />
MDIVISION<br />
In 1982, Congreas enacted the Nuclear Warta Policy Act. The Policy Act already made Its decision about the disposal or the to 1s, the<br />
eatablishes a progr am for the deep geologic: dlslual of commercial<br />
aSngle-shell tanks..<br />
high-level nuclear Waste. Me Act also allows the President to<br />
determine whether high-level-defense Waste x111 also be disposed of in<br />
I do not believe that Ys,-place stabilization of the xaete. I, the<br />
the commeroial repository. President Reagan, In Me spring of 1985, single-ahell tan s, should be e. pe,.At disposal option. At best, it<br />
.us the dominion to permit eemmlngling of defense and eeamerclel highmaybe<br />
a tempor ar y solution but it should not be the final decision. 3.3.2.1<br />
2.4.1.4<br />
level Waste in one repository. .The President's decision to .approve. The single-shell tanks are not safe for the permanent dispoaal of these<br />
commingling forged a link between cmamr.fal an d defense high-level.<br />
Wastes. MAY have leaked in the past; some allege that they continue<br />
waste disposal.<br />
to leak. These Wastes should be disposed Of 1s, a reposiEOry. the<br />
health and safety of future geneeatlom should not be sacrificed<br />
O<br />
W<br />
. ,<br />
The licage between the commercial and defame Waste disposal programs bameae the coat of repository disposal say be greater than in-place<br />
Was further strengthened by the May 28 decision of Secretary Herrington stabilization. Safety, not econoaAim. must drive the disposal 2.2.3<br />
to postpone -indefinitely the site selection process for a second decision.<br />
repository. It appears tome t ha t the comercial repository progr am<br />
2. 1.10<br />
say be driving the disposal option dacieiens far defame xante. The fie credibility of the U.S. Department of Energy is highly s us pect<br />
final environmental a mWo.ent (EA) released on Hay 28th makes since the Nay 28 decision to "indefinitely postpone- the alto selection<br />
assumptions about the mount of defame mate that Would be co mmingled<br />
In a commercial repository. The EA assures that moats if not all, of<br />
Process for a second repository. I share the view that the<br />
Department's decision violatem the spirit and letter of the law as<br />
3.3.2.1 the waste I. the single-.h.11 tads, Will he stabilized in place; that embodied in the Nucle ar Made Policy Act. Consequently, I m somewhat<br />
Ss, not disposed of in a repository. The "indefinite postpoeeeent" of gun-shy about participating in the defense mate disposal process for<br />
the selection process for a second repository also appears to rely on fear that the Department say again engage In arbitrary and capricio us<br />
e<br />
2 . 5 . 5<br />
^f<br />
3. 3 . J . /<br />
this ass um ption Which my result in g reater pressure for in-place<br />
atabilizatiun of these xaa to. an es to not affect the capacity of the<br />
first repository Which In limit ed to 70.000 ietrie tom. SOLD of thee.<br />
factors lend credence to the belief t hat the Department Won in fact<br />
behavior. The state of Washington participated in goad faith in<br />
activities undertaken pursuant to the Nucle ar Waste Policy Act only to<br />
have the rug yanked out &m under us on Hay 28. My should We expect<br />
different treatment by. the Department In the defense Waste<br />
M,Iranmentml Impact Statement proem? As I have already mentioned,
070 070<br />
RECEIVED CAE-RL<br />
RECEIVED COE-RL<br />
PeBe t<br />
JUL 18 M6<br />
JUL 18 IW6<br />
J6,10<br />
b Page 5<br />
YJM DIVISION<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
the appearance that a decision has already been made by the Department<br />
Environmental Impact Statement fails W may What that research and<br />
in favor of in-place stabilization of We existing defame Waste in the<br />
development should be or how long It will take to complete that<br />
single-shell 1-sks only adds to my ..i.e...<br />
process.<br />
1)<br />
C)<br />
A<br />
2 .3.2.1<br />
3 .3.5.4<br />
3.3.2.4<br />
2 .5.9<br />
2 .5.9<br />
I thick that the Draft EnViromental Impact Statement process may he<br />
peematura. Me draft document admit. that in the case of single-shell<br />
tack Wastes, "farther research and development Will be required to<br />
Verify dlapmail methods prior to a final decision or implementation."<br />
t. can m intelligent decision an a disposal method for aI.gle-.hell<br />
tack Waste be made When the necessary research and development data<br />
upon Which to bane a decision hoe not been conducted? If, as the Draft<br />
Environmental Impact StatemenI,. alleges, further data on retrieval<br />
methods Will be required .before a final decision can be made on the<br />
geologic disposal option, then Why are We .engaged In a process Which<br />
admittedly lacks the pertinent data upon Which to base a rational<br />
choice? Let'. obtain the relevant e.marab and development data needed<br />
to make a decision on disposal options before We Wake that decision<br />
rather than after. .This seen like a classic ca.. of putting the cart<br />
before the hares. -<br />
Me need for additional research and development Work also supports the<br />
argument that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is too narrow in<br />
its scope. That is, it should be more specific we to what Information<br />
will be needed to resolve certain disposal issues. Per example, mementioned<br />
amiler, the disposal of the wastes 30 the single-.hell tacks<br />
x111 require mate resesnh and development. However, the Draft<br />
Me Draft Environmental Impact Statement contends that defense Waste<br />
Will continue to be produced for 12 more years at <strong>Hanford</strong>. The draft<br />
should provide contingencie s Yor Waste production and examine a range 2.3.1.6<br />
of production acraceim. ghat if Waste production ceases In 6 years?<br />
20 years? 50. year.? ?hose possibilities should be addressed by the<br />
Draft Environmental Impact "Statement. The uncertainty surrounding<br />
future defene Waste production should me recognized and planned for<br />
With reali.ilc options.<br />
In comlmlon, the most Important point that I thick mast be made is<br />
that the Department needs to recognize the linkage between defense and<br />
maw.rclel waste disposal decisions. They are part of the sane<br />
problem. The cominglin, decision by the President cemented that link.<br />
Decisions in the couerclal Ed Woceaz can affect decisions in the<br />
defense Draft ETNiremantal Impact Statement process. Until this<br />
linkage Is recognized, the Department'm disposal program for high- 2,1.3<br />
level radioactive waste will offer Incomplete solutions to a nationwide<br />
problem. Partial solutions encourage di.trmt of the Department's<br />
analyse. and decisions. - The DepmrtmanCS credibility has been 2.5.5<br />
seriously ukcermineE by the postponement of the accord repository<br />
program. The defense waste program any suffer became of -this.<br />
f nzegmntly, I urge the Department to begin to restore Its credibility'
8<br />
Is<br />
Page6<br />
WH<br />
RECEIVED DOE.RL<br />
JUL 18 1986<br />
0070<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
RECElVE6 DOE-RL<br />
JUL 18 MB pOTI<br />
COMMENTS ON THE D<strong>EIS</strong> FOR DISPOSAL OF<br />
HANFORD DEFENSE NIGH-LEVEL, THU AND TAN, WASTES<br />
VJM DIVISION<br />
_<br />
Seattle,. Washington, July 15. 1986<br />
071<br />
2. 5. j<br />
by aclmowit,ging the linkep between the cammereial and defense waste<br />
program. A commitment to arely. the lmpacta of the delay in the<br />
int repository program upon d a feve wemte disposal ph scald begin to<br />
alleviate the Department's credibility problem. Thank you.<br />
AW:dq-6<br />
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT<br />
Ruth F. Weiner<br />
Western Washington University<br />
Bellingham, WA 98226<br />
These comments refer only to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement<br />
(D<strong>EIS</strong>) in question, and relate only tangentially to any decisions on the<br />
commercial high-level radioactive waste (HLW) repository. Moreover,<br />
deficiencies and discrepancies in the D<strong>EIS</strong> beyond the major ones are not<br />
identified; I intend to submit nm,a detailed comments on the Appendices<br />
before the and of the comment period. Finally, these comments reflect alv<br />
awn views; they are net, to my knowledge, representative of the views of<br />
any agency, organization, institution, or public interest group, although I<br />
have submitted them to the Northwest Citizens' Forum on Defense Waste, of<br />
which I am a member. 1 have received no financial or logistical assistance<br />
in preparing these comments.<br />
O<br />
0<br />
O<br />
INTRODUCTION -<br />
=$<br />
Nine U-238 in a plutonium production reactor is irradiated, both fis<br />
rh<br />
sion products and neutron activation products are present after irradia-<br />
O<br />
Lion. The process of isolating and purifying plutonium and fissile uranium<br />
(TI<br />
from this irradiated feel yields considerable quantity of chemical waste,<br />
d<br />
in solution form, which also contains a variety of radionuclides and which<br />
(D<br />
is. in part, highly radioactive. The process of plutonium production and<br />
=5<br />
purification was begun more than 40 years ago, when the chemistry of - T,I,<br />
radioactive materials was in its infancy, as was knowledge of groundwater y<br />
-pollution mechanisms and the radiochemistry of soils. In the absence of J<br />
any appropriate disposal means, very radioactive plutonium production waste<br />
was partially dewatered and stared in tanks, radiocesium and radiostrontium<br />
N<br />
were purified and encapsulated, less radioactive liquid was dispersed in<br />
C1<br />
the soil from cribi(.and low-level transuranic (THU) waste was stared or<br />
buried. Today, high-level waste is still stored in tanks, though these are<br />
now double-walled, adequately monitored tanks, and much low-level liquid<br />
waste is, unfortunately, , still dispersed from cribs into the soil or stored<br />
in ponds. None of these disposal methods, with the possible exception of<br />
ponds, has ever been considered permanent.<br />
N<br />
1
071<br />
M,<br />
O<br />
2.3.2.1<br />
SCOPE OF THE D<strong>EIS</strong><br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 18 1986 061<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
The D<strong>EIS</strong> under consideration addresses the permanent disposal of this<br />
Waste. It is a bit odd that the issuance of the D<strong>EIS</strong> coincides with the<br />
issuance of the final envirom ental assessnts re for characterization of the<br />
first commercial PLAN repository. This schedule brings the D<strong>EIS</strong> to the<br />
public at the height of the controversy over siting the repository and has<br />
resulted in understandable public Confusion over the two issues. It would<br />
be, prudent for WE to address the timing of this document in the Final <strong>EIS</strong><br />
on Defense Waste. In fact, this D<strong>EIS</strong> is independent of the repository<br />
siting decision (except in one aspect, which will be discussed below): the<br />
tank waste, TRU waste and contaminated soil at <strong>Hanford</strong> must eventually be<br />
treated for permanent disposal no matter where the commercial re pay itory is<br />
put or when the commercial repository begins to accept waste.<br />
There is also sane confusion about the relationship of this D<strong>EIS</strong> to<br />
the recently released General Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled<br />
-f Nuclear Waste: Department of Energy's Transuranic Waste Disposal Plan<br />
3.1.3.7 X.ses Revision- (GAO/RCEO-86-90) which states (p. 18) that the DOE has not<br />
fully addressed 81% of the defense TRU waste. Since this GAO report was<br />
issued at the save Lire as this D<strong>EIS</strong>, and this D<strong>EIS</strong> is not cited in the<br />
report, one might assume that the D<strong>EIS</strong> Was not included in the documents<br />
reviewed by GAO. The impression remains, however, that the D<strong>EIS</strong> does not<br />
include a substantial fraction of the TRU defense waste at <strong>Hanford</strong>. Is all<br />
defense waste included in the D<strong>EIS</strong>? If any is not included, it should he<br />
incorporated into the final <strong>EIS</strong>. Since there were no scoping hearings at<br />
which this paint could be raised, it oust be addressed at some point.<br />
The absence of seeping hearings also seems to preclude considering the<br />
question of continuing to produce plutonium at <strong>Hanford</strong>, and thus continuing<br />
to produce this waste. It would make no sense to discontinue plutonium<br />
production at <strong>Hanford</strong> permanently while continuing production elsewhere in<br />
the United States. Whether or not to continue plutonium warhead production<br />
at all is a question that DOE cannot answer unilaterally; this is a decision<br />
for Congress.<br />
2.3.1. 1<br />
THE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE HANFORD DEFENSE-RELATED WASTE<br />
The wastes included in the D<strong>EIS</strong> are:- HLW from the PUREx process<br />
stored in double-shell and single-shell tanks, current stored TRU waste.<br />
pre-1970 TRU waste, Sr and Cs capsules. TRU-contaminated soil, current acid<br />
waste, waste from cladding removal, organic wash wastes, finishing plant<br />
waste, and miscellaneous customer and N-reactor waste. The options<br />
presented. in addition to a 'no action' option, are: '(1) vitrification and<br />
Geologic disposal of most of the Waste. with in-place stabilization of the<br />
remainder; (2) in-place stabilization of all defense Waste: (3) a<br />
'reference alternative- in which HLW in double-shell tanks is vitrified for<br />
geologic disposal and the remainder of the defense waste is stabilized in<br />
place. Unfortunately, reduction of the waste stream is only alluded tO In<br />
2.3.2.2 the D<strong>EIS</strong>, and not adequately analyzed. The D<strong>EIS</strong> does not indicate a<br />
preferred disposal alternative, but asks for public comment on preferences,<br />
so that appropriate further research directions are indicated.<br />
2<br />
VITRIFICATION AND GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL<br />
RECE!VEif DOE-RL<br />
eUL 18 1986 DOW<br />
WIN DIVISION<br />
The 'geologic disposal' alternative, appropriately, does not concern<br />
itself with repository location. There is, however, considerable apprehension<br />
that the DOE decision not to proceed with the second HLW repository<br />
has pre-emoted geologic disposal, because the amount of vitrified defense<br />
waste thus generated, when added to the commercial Waste, would exceed the<br />
repository capacity. The D<strong>EIS</strong> indicates that geologic disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
waste would yield 23,819 canisters of waste, which by WE calculations converts<br />
to 11.910 MTHM (more recent ME calculations indicate 22,000<br />
canisters, or 11,000 MTHM). An additional 7250 MTHM of defense HLW is an- 3.3.5.7<br />
ticipated from other sources. If commercial spent fuel requires 50,000<br />
MTHM repository capacity, and since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act limits the<br />
first repository to 10,000 MTHM, the first repository would be. ,lust<br />
adequate if WE's calculations are correct, but allows for only a 10% error<br />
(approximately) in those calculations. The final <strong>EIS</strong> most thus assure that<br />
work on the second repository will resume in atimely manner, or an amendsent<br />
to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act t0 expand the size of the first<br />
repository would be required.. Such an amendment would have considerable<br />
and complex repercussions.<br />
Vitrification of HLW appears: to to an .adequately tested .technology;<br />
there is an operating plant at Parabola in France. Moreover, the proposed<br />
3.1.8.10<br />
dissolving of waste in glass has considerable advantages over glass production<br />
from a calcine (as is done In Idaho). Calcining . requires exceedingly 3 3 2 3<br />
• . .<br />
high temperatures, and the calcine produced is a difficult substance to<br />
handle, isolate.. and manipulate (1 sakethese comments from personal experience<br />
with ntking doped glass from calcines). Although the behavior of<br />
radioactively-doped glass over periods of thousands of years cannot be predicted<br />
with any certainty, it is safe to assume that the glass is more<br />
stable than spent fuel itself. Even though there is the probability that<br />
glass devitrifies(since radiation damages the glass structure) and can<br />
than be leached by water,. the rate. of leaching of radioactive materials in<br />
the glass would be less than the leaching rate from spent :fuel, if only because<br />
the' radioactive material is considerably were dilute in glass than in<br />
spent fuel. Synthetic ceramics, like 'synroc% might prove preferable to<br />
glass, but synroc technology is not as well understood, 'nor would the difference<br />
in suitability. be very great. However, vitrification and geologic<br />
disposal have been recommended for radioactive waste since 1979, when a<br />
Study at these o -<br />
nuhlishnA by rhp U. s. e.nlnnir ci....<br />
Rlrnutar of/ y : ° ueolog C Disposal of Radioactive Waste"). With all of the<br />
uncertainties attendant on very long term predictions, vitrification and<br />
geologic disposal appear to provide the most assured isolation of radioactive<br />
waste from the accessible environment..<br />
The major drawbacks to vitrification are three: extensive handling of<br />
the material is necessary, considerable volumes of process waste are<br />
produced, and the costs in both dollars and ener gy are extremely high.<br />
Both the cost and the occupational radiation exposure -attendant on the<br />
geologic disposal alternative am almost an Order of magnitude higher than<br />
for the other alternatives. Occupational exposure may be decreased by increasing<br />
remote handling, but this markedly increases cost<br />
3
:l<br />
p<br />
071 071<br />
1—<br />
CD<br />
V<br />
3.1.4.5<br />
J<br />
3.1.6.1<br />
RECEIVED DOER<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 18 986 JUL 18 986<br />
VVM DIVISION<br />
It is not clear that the witted proposed for digging solidified waste<br />
out of the single-shell tanks has ever been tested on any scale. A dry,<br />
met,d might appear preferable to any sort of hydraulic sluicing of the<br />
single-shell tanks, given their age. and partly corralled state, but other<br />
methods should an discussed and cospared. In particular, any method actually<br />
used for such a process west be included in the <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
The D<strong>EIS</strong> does not cartel. asatisfactory discussion of the handling<br />
and treatment of current chemical (.a distinct from radiological) wastes<br />
from the PUREZ process, let alone an adequate discussion or analysis of<br />
process wastes from vitrification itself. The geologic disposal alterna-<br />
Iive would include a considerably larger waste stream than the reference<br />
alternative;. much of the waste contains compounds (sulfates, hydroxides,<br />
etc.) which cannot be incorporated into glass. Any final <strong>EIS</strong> should inclads<br />
a detailed discussion and analysis; a supplemental <strong>EIS</strong> should be considered.<br />
IN-PLACE STABILIZATION<br />
The discussion of in-place stabilization do the 0<strong>EIS</strong> makes it clear<br />
that actual experimental work done in supportof. this alternative is<br />
grossly insufficient. It is unclear from the discussions in Appendices A,<br />
3.3.2.4 B, 0 and M. whether descriptions are of conceptualizations or of actual experimentaldata;<br />
most of the methods described appear to be conceptual.<br />
.Appendices M. 0. and 0. which deal with hydrologic models, do not indicate<br />
clearly how these models have been calibrated and reveal insufficient experimental<br />
testing of models. -<br />
The success of in-place stabilization as an isolation technique<br />
depends on the performance of the oil overburden and capillary barrier.<br />
3.5.1.21 At present,. there has been . actual testing of adequately loamy or silty<br />
soils for this barrier, although such testing will apparently begin during<br />
the fiscal year; soils tested to date are not suitable for the barfla<br />
y . Thus, no decision at all can be was now on the adequacy of the<br />
proposed barrier for isolation from rain and weather.<br />
Oravel-and .rack fill is the only rethod proposed for stabilizing the<br />
single-shell tanks (Appendix B): it is proposed to fill the space in the<br />
tank above the dewatered solid waste with gravel or rock, which would sta-<br />
C bilizethe shape of the tank and contain the waste. This method is conceptual<br />
at present, and is certainly not the only method which could be con-<br />
. ceptualized.by DOE. While pouring grout or cement into the tank poses considerable<br />
problems ofwaste migration, other fill types should be considered<br />
which do not depend so heavily on drying the waste.. Clay<br />
Ibentanite or kaolin) or a clay and sand mixture might not only fill the<br />
tank but absorb remaining moisture in the waste and adsorb any wet waste.<br />
Clay fill might also penetrate the waste layers in the tank and provide a<br />
more complete fill. This sort of method needs to to investigated and<br />
tested. Complete chemical and radiological characterization of tank contents<br />
is also needed.<br />
3.14 . 25<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
There is an ongoing in situ vitrification project at <strong>Hanford</strong>, yet this<br />
method was not suggested l:or stabilizing contaminated soil sites. In-place<br />
vitrification might be the best method for stabilizing TAU-contaminated<br />
soil, and should be included in any <strong>EIS</strong>. In any case, deliberate contamination<br />
of the soil with TRU waste is unnecessarily risky, and the use<br />
of cribs and unlined ponds should be discontinued. Methods for reducing<br />
water volutes need to be investigated and substituted for simple absorption<br />
of contaminated solutions by soil.<br />
The proposed grouting process and WRAP facility are also only conceptualized<br />
as yet; the WRAP process needs to be tested to some extent. Different<br />
grout formulas need testing for consistency, setup time, drying<br />
rate, etc., before any decision . can be made on grouting. In sum, all<br />
aspects of the in-place stabilization proposal need actual experimental<br />
testing and a supplemental <strong>EIS</strong> before any decision an in-place stabslization<br />
can be made or recommended.<br />
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES<br />
Informedcomparisons can be made only on the basis of adequate information<br />
on techniques of disposal, costs, and comparative risks. As has<br />
been pointed out above, the information given on in-place stabilization<br />
techniques is inadequate for informed comparison. Cost analysis in the<br />
OE IS i5 not adequate for anything; Appendices J' and K address costs without<br />
sufficient-0eta I). The only conclusion which can be drawn is that<br />
vitrification seems to be the most expensive waste treatment option. The<br />
mgnituds of the difference in cost between vitrification and in-place sta.<br />
bilization cannot be estimated until an.adequate cost analysis is done,<br />
however.<br />
Non-radiologic occupational risks, except for those associated with<br />
transportation, are not enumerated or analyzed in sufficient detail.<br />
Operation of the vitrification, grouting, and WRAP facilities is hazardous<br />
in that large quantities -of material, massive machinery, and, in the case<br />
Of vitrification, very high temperatures.. are involved. Removal of<br />
material from the tanks involves handling high-pressure water' streams. In<br />
the absence of adequate information, one may assume that<br />
each alternative<br />
is very hazardous to workers. Qualitatively, removal of material from<br />
tanks and vitrification appear to include greater non-radiological occupational<br />
hazard than the various me thodsgiven for in-place stabilization.<br />
Radiological risks among alternatives are amenable to soot comparison.<br />
The long term risks from geologic disposal (assessable from the EPA risk<br />
Assessment for 40 CFR 191) can be compared to the results of the two<br />
scenarios for: fai lure of the barriers in the in-place stabilization alternative<br />
(Appendices R and S). Both the radionuclide release-to-dose Conversion<br />
and the dose-to-risk conversion used by WE have been questioned,: but<br />
comparisons can still he made since the Sam conversion factors are used<br />
for all scenarios. Similarly, non-fatal cancers are excluded from health<br />
effects, but they are excluded in every case (an adequate risk analysis<br />
would be based on cancer incidence rather than cancer fatalities, and this<br />
should be done in the final <strong>EIS</strong>). -<br />
1671<br />
3.1.8.18<br />
3.1,4.14<br />
3.3.5.9<br />
3.2.6.8<br />
3.3.2.4<br />
3.4.1.11<br />
3.4.1.7<br />
3.5.5.8
ffV 7 f 'd -?P ^.<br />
X3'71 071<br />
O<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 18 6%<br />
WM DIMION<br />
Although the research in the D<strong>EIS</strong> is inadequate for any conclusion,<br />
the impression given by the D<strong>EIS</strong> is that vitrification and .geologic disposal<br />
provide more secure isolation of the waste far the future, especially<br />
the distant future, than In-place stabilization, at the expense of canalterably<br />
greater present radiologic hazard Win to workers and to the<br />
2.3.2.2<br />
general public. This suggests that much more research is needed into the<br />
in-place stabilization options and the barrier before a real decision can<br />
be ma de. It is also true, however, that a decision should he made in the<br />
foreseeable future - in a few years - and even than there will he ob3ec.<br />
tuns on the grounds of insufficient information.<br />
RECOMMENDATIONS<br />
The fallowingrecommendations are for priorities for further research.<br />
r^ At this Lire there is not sufficient knowledge about in-place stabilization<br />
2 .3. 2 .3 to either include it in some combination with vitrification, like the<br />
re ference al ternative, or rule it out. Vitrification and geologic dispast,<br />
on the other hand, appear to provide sufficiently superior isolation<br />
that they should not be ruled out for the high-level tank waste and the encapsulated<br />
Sr and Ca. Further research will materially ass f st in a decision<br />
on the single-shell tank wastes, which simply cannot be made at<br />
present, add indicate the need for a supplemental <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
e<br />
3.5.1. 56 1. The highest research priority should be into actual barrier performance<br />
under extreme climate conditions. if the barriers don't behave as anticipated,<br />
the geologic disposal alternative would be superior.<br />
p<br />
3 .1. 8 .2 1 2. The ..and research priority is actual testing, on some scale, of the<br />
transportable grout .facility and the NRAP facility, as well as testing of<br />
in situ vitrification for TRU-contaminated soil. Even with the geologic<br />
dfspol eaalternative, sans material will have to be stabilized in place.<br />
3. If the barrier performance is not as predicted, safe removal of<br />
material from the single-shelltanks assumes a high priority. Other<br />
3.1.4.5 mathoda than that given in the D<strong>EIS</strong> must be investigated, and any suggested<br />
method most be tested. Perhaps limited testing could be done one one or<br />
two cants, in any case, for both this priority and the following one.<br />
3.1.4.35<br />
4. If the barriers appear to perform as predicted. methods for stabilizing<br />
the single-shell tanks and their contents would assume a higher priority<br />
than methods of removing material from these tanks. - Other materials should<br />
be tested in addition to rack fill.<br />
The following recommendations are directed toward the final <strong>EIS</strong>, and<br />
relate to other aspects of the D<strong>EIS</strong> than further research.<br />
i<br />
RECEIVED DOE.RL<br />
JUL 18 MG oe 9/<br />
3. A thorough analysis of WM DIVPIP.N O A • t<br />
g y non-radiological occupational hazards is nee e<br />
J Y 1 .7<br />
4. A thorough analysis of the relationship between each alternative, the . o<br />
decision to delay the second repository, and the rate of generation of coma- i<br />
.8<br />
nercial spent feet is needed.<br />
6. Options for reducing the defense waste stream, such as the process<br />
;gdffication facility, should be included. -<br />
2. 3 . 1<br />
6. A thorough analysis of the process waste streams and management of haz- C<br />
ardoucoastcal s- waste, including regulatory overlap and uncertainties following<br />
on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the mixed waste<br />
3. 1 . 6 .1<br />
issue, is needed.<br />
]. Since the Sr and Cs capsules require minimal, if any, treatment before<br />
be storage f a geol og f repository, the geologic repository appears to be the 3. 1<br />
st alternative for these, at least. Costs and advantages and disadvantages<br />
of this option should be explicit.<br />
.2 .5<br />
8. Adequate funding for the management of wastes from defense activities<br />
should be ass ores..<br />
2. 2 .9<br />
9. Waste-producing defense activities should either he regulated directly<br />
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and<br />
2.<br />
t<br />
4 . 1 .1<br />
he. Environmental Protection<br />
Agency, or DOE should abide by the. regulations promulgated by these<br />
agencies by explicit written agreement.<br />
10. Differences . between the . D<strong>EIS</strong> and the re GAO report on TRU waste should be 3 . 1 . 3<br />
conciled.<br />
.7<br />
11. Use of cribs for radioactive liquid disposal should be discontinued.<br />
2.2.1<br />
^pp<br />
13. Cancer Incidence rather than cancer fatalities should be the measure of<br />
radiologic risk.<br />
3.5 . 5 8<br />
A FINAL STATEMENT<br />
The ultimate choice of which wastes to vitrify and which to stabilize<br />
in place will involve a balance be tween current public and occupational<br />
radiologic risks and potential future radiologic risks; e. g., vitrification<br />
entails the greatest occupational and public health risks but appears<br />
to provide the best tong-term isolation. The choice must be made carefully<br />
and knowledgeably and, if possible, such that all risks are minimized.<br />
.14<br />
3.1.8.9<br />
O<br />
3 .2.6. 8<br />
1. The vitrification facility should be fully tested with hot feed;<br />
vitrification appears to be the best option for at least some double-shell<br />
high-level tank waste and newly generated RLW from the PURER process.<br />
2. A thorough and detailed cost analysis of all options is needed.<br />
6<br />
7
0 72<br />
1 2<br />
0'72<br />
H<br />
C)<br />
O<br />
ID<br />
^/ Y AffAffff<br />
USSENATE=<br />
BROCK ADAMS' T-STIMONY<br />
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY<br />
JULY 15, 19B6<br />
MR. WHITE, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MY NAME 25<br />
BROCK ADAMS AND I AM PLEASED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY.<br />
THE DISPOSAL OF HANFORD'$ 93-YEAR ACCUMULATION OF DEFENSE WASTE I9 ONE OF<br />
THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES. FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR REGION. FOR OUR<br />
GENERATION. AND FOR MANY GENERATIONS TO COME,<br />
YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD A GREAT DEAL OF TECHNICAL TESTIMONY AND I KNOW OTHERS<br />
WILLHAVE MORE TO ADD BEFORE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS.<br />
WHAT I'D LIKE TO CONCENTRATE ON TODAY IS THE QUESTION OF PUBLIC PROCESS:<br />
HOW TO WE DEAL WITH THIS COMPLEX ISSUE? HOW DO WE ACHIEVE REGIONAL<br />
CONSENSUS? HOW CAN WE ENSURE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY?<br />
AND FINALLY, HOW 00 WE 'MAKE SURE THE MONEY IS THERE TO PAY FOR THE CLEANUP<br />
OF HANFORD'S NUCLEAR WASTE?<br />
I'VE WATCHED CLOSELY AS YOU'VE GONE THRUUGH YOUR DEFENSE WASTE E.I.S. PUBLIC<br />
PROCESS, AND I'D LIKE TO COMPLIMENT YOU FOR A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO TAKE THE<br />
ISSUES TO OUR CITIZENS AND KEEP YOUR MINDS OPEN.<br />
YOU'VE MAUE VAST IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE TRADITIONAL DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WAY<br />
OF DOING THINGS.'<br />
IMPRESSED<br />
CITIZEN'S<br />
2.3.2.12 APPOINTED BYR MIKELLAWRENCE. IT WAS AHGOOD IDEAHTOS FORMA TRULYFOINDEPENDENT<br />
BODY OF CITIZENS TO REVIEW THE E.I.S., AND FRANKLY, IT TOOK GUTS TO INCLUDE<br />
SEVERAL HANFORD CRITICS ON THE FORUM. "..ON MY VANTAGE POINT, IT LOOKS LIKE<br />
THE EFFORT WILL PAY OFF. I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH SEVERAL<br />
MEMBERS OF THE FORUM, AND THEY REPORT TO ME THAT IT APPEARS LIKELY THAT 26<br />
CITIZENS, REPRESENTING DIFFERENT INTERESTS AND PERSPECTIVES, ARE GOING TO<br />
REACH A CONSENSUS.<br />
IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WILL CLOSELY PARALLEL THOSE<br />
ARRIVEDAT INDEPENDENTLY BY THE STATES OF OREGON AND WASHINGTON. IF DOE 15<br />
WILLING TO LIVE WITH THESE COMPROMISES - AND I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO - I<br />
THINK WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO ACHIEVING A REGIONAL CONSENSUS.<br />
BELIEVE ME, WE'RE GOING. TO NEED TO BE TOGETHER AS A REGION IF WE'RE EVER<br />
GOING TO GET CONGRESS TO APPROPRIATE THE -2 OR Z OR 11 BILLION DOLLARS IT<br />
WILL TAKE TO CLEAN UP HANFORD.<br />
THAT LAST POINT RAISES A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: IN AN ERA DP<br />
GRAMM-RUDMAN, HOW CAN WE GET THE MONEY?<br />
RE^EhcD COE-RL.<br />
a2a<br />
Beanie Waslnn9^.n981 21 •(206).3<br />
rnv.eem ^s}w..n.u.m.<br />
'^UL 18 1988 W17<br />
6MDI1J ISION<br />
Page two<br />
RECEIVED COL-RL<br />
JUL 18 1986<br />
WMDNISION 0072'<br />
FIRST, WE HAVE TO ACHIEVE THAT REGIONAL CONSENSUS. SECOND, AND THIS WILL BE<br />
ONE OF MY VERY FIRST ACTS WHEN I GO BACK TO WASHINGTON DC AS A U.S. SENATOR<br />
NEXT JANUARY, WE MUST SECURE THE FUNDS NOW TO PROCEED WITH THE CLEANUP.. AND<br />
FOP. FUTURE YEARS, WE MUST CREATE A TRUST FUND. CR OTHER UNTOUCHABLE SOURCE OF<br />
MONEY TO PROVIDE FOR THE ONGOING WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES.<br />
FOR TOO LONG, WE HAVE HIDDEN THE TRUE COST OF WEAPONS PRODUCTION BY NOT<br />
ACCOUNTING FOR THE BILLIONS IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO SAFELY DISPOSE OF THE 2.2. L 9J<br />
WASTE.<br />
IF OUR NATION'S POLICY IS TO CONTINUE TO BUILD MORE OF THESE WEAPONS -- AND<br />
I THINK WE SERIOUSLY NE E D TO QUESTION T E EE ORE -- THEN THE LEAST WE<br />
CAN DO IS PROVIDE THE MONEY ON A CURRENT BASIS TO PAY THE TRUE COST,<br />
INCLUDING DISPOSAL.<br />
NOW, 50 MUCH FOR DEFENSE WASTE.ITS SHEER VOLUME AND THE PROBLEMS .WE ARE<br />
HAVING WITH ITS SAFE DISPOSAL TIE DIRECTLY TO ANOTHER DOE DECISION INVOLVING<br />
HANFORD.<br />
AS WE ALL KNOW, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IS ALSO INVOLVED IN ANOTHER<br />
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT OECISICN -- THE SITING DE TI_" NATION'S FIRST -- AND<br />
POSSIBLY ONSY --. DEEP REPOSITORY FOR COMMERCIAL AND MILITARY NUCLEAR<br />
WASTE.<br />
NOW I REALIZE THAT NONE OF YOU HERE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT HAVE<br />
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE REPOSITORY DECISION. BUT I WANT YOU TO DO ME A<br />
FAVOR.<br />
. ^. V C<br />
I'D. LIKE YOU TO TAKE MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON D.C. FOR ME. THE MESSAGE 1 9<br />
THIS; WE HAVE TRIED PLAYING<br />
SYSTEM OF SAFE MONITORED RETRIEVABLE RSTORAGE E IMRSJ A SITES E IS THE ARIGHT ANSWER 3.3.4.2<br />
FOR THE .INTERIM OF 40 OR 50 .YEARS.<br />
THE CITIZENS<br />
ISSUE FEW<br />
WERE IGNORED.<br />
WE MUST START S DER I AND OT TRY AGAIN. CAN YOU IMAGINE ANPLACE Y IN THE<br />
CONTINENTAL U.S. THAT IS WORSE FROM R TRANSPORTATION PERSPECTIVE THAN<br />
HANFORD'<br />
THE TRANSPORTATION OF 70.000 TONS OF INTENSELY RADIOACTIVE COMMERCIAL WASTE<br />
MAY BE THE WEAKEST LINK. IN THIS POLITICAL CHAIN REACTION.<br />
IF YOU LIVE IN SPOKANE, OR BOISE OR MISSOULA OR EASTERN OREGON, AND HANFORD<br />
IS SELECTED AS THE NATION'S ATOMIC LANDFILL, PREPARE YOURSELF FOR ONE HECK<br />
OF A NUCLEAR PARADE. 1 7 5,000 TRACTOR-TRAILER TRUCKLOADS, OR MORE THAN<br />
22.000 TRAIN LOADS OF SPENT FUEL RODS WILL PASS THROUGH THESE NORTHWEST<br />
COMMUNITIES OVER A2B' YEAR PERIOD.<br />
OUR FRIENDS IN OREGON. IDAHO, MONTANA AND ONEVERY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION<br />
CORRIDOR C"GY.T TO BE JUST AS CONCERNED AS WE ARE. WE MUST UNITE WITH OTHER<br />
STATES AFFECTED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUE TO GIVE US THE POLITICAL<br />
MUSCLE WE OEVSOUS- Y DON'T HAVE TODAY IN THE U.S. SENATE.<br />
3. 4. 2.<br />
. L
V 9<br />
F 91<br />
5<br />
e5<br />
072<br />
073<br />
Page three<br />
3.4.2.2<br />
3.4.2.2<br />
AS A FORMER SECRETARY OF TRANSP ORTATION , I KNOW FIRST-HAND THE DANGERS OF<br />
TRg NBPORTING HAZARDOUS CARGO OVER THE . ION'S RAIL AND HIGHWAY SYSTEMS.<br />
I'VE SEEN. TOO MANY EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS THAT RESULTED IN LEAKS OR<br />
EXPLOSIONS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. I SHUDDER TO THINK OF THE EFFECTS<br />
OF A NUCLEAR TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT.<br />
DEADLY NUCLEAR GARBAGE WILL RUMBLE ALONG OUR HIGHWAYS IN ONE OF THE LONGEST<br />
AND MOST DANGEROUS CONVOYS IN HISTORY. THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MUST<br />
ENTER INTO A TRANSPORTATION WORKING AGP.EEMENI WITH REGIONAL STATES TO<br />
ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES AS: LIABILITY FOR ACCIDENTS, INFORMATION ABOUT THE<br />
TIMING, ROUTES AND CONTENTS OF .SHIPMENTS, AND CONTACT PROTOCOL BETWEEN THE<br />
STATES AND WASTE CARRIERS.<br />
f<br />
`ooEn ACT FOR PERCEwome 1 STRIKE F08 PEACE<br />
v<br />
N<br />
D.wrtmeht of Energy<br />
EL CENTRO DE U RAZA . 2525 M6W booth, SeaWm jWw 99144<br />
SuNelYemen Act foe Peace/Vl6P<br />
Jay 15, 19B AECENED COE-RL.<br />
JUL 18 1986 JCT3<br />
i-4<br />
C)<br />
2.1.1<br />
A RIMI LAR AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN DOE AND THE STATE OF SOUTH<br />
CAROLINA IN 1900. THE CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON DEMAND THE SAME.<br />
WE IN WASHINGTON ARE WILLING TO DO OUR FAIR SHARE. WE HAVE SAID THAT IF THE<br />
PROCESS IS FAIR AND THE SCIENCE INDISPUTABLE WE WON'T PLAY THE "PLOT IN MV<br />
BACKYARD" GAME. WELL. THE ADMINISTRATION AND DOE MUST HAVE THOUGHT THEY<br />
COULD PU LL ONE OVER ON US.<br />
THEY CREATED AN ELABORATE SYSTEM TO EVALUATE THE FIVE SEMI-FINAL SITES,<br />
SPENT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IN THIS ELABORATE RANKING PROCESS, AND THEN, WHEN<br />
IT CAME RIGHT DOWN TO IT, DID THEY PICK THE TOP THREE .SITES?<br />
NO. THEY PICKED NUMBERS ONE, THREE AND FIVE." HANFORD WAS NUMBER FIVE, BUT<br />
SOMEHOW MADE THE TOP-THREE LIST. THAT ISN'T SCIENCE, THAT ISN'T FAIRNESS,<br />
THAT'S THE DOE NUCLEAR LOTTO GAME. THE EXPLANATION WAS THAT DOE WANTED<br />
8O-CALLED GEOLOGIC DIVERSITY AND THAT HANFORD'S BASALT FILLED THE BILL.<br />
BUT AT THE GAME TIME, THE DEPARTMENT CANCELLED ALL THE EAST COAST GRANITE<br />
SITES WHEN IT CALLED OFF THE SEARCH FOR THE SECOND REPOSITORY.<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
There Ss mare to the federally directed decision for Sanford to become the<br />
nation's nuclear dmnnelte than meets the eye.<br />
What an hear from our adninistratim and oiliticians is ¢a phasia on science and<br />
technology. Today, and even yesterday, we have bean and are faced with a series<br />
3.4.3.1<br />
of reablems of cateolfaml0 c naepnances that have not yet been solved. As ad exawale;<br />
the .1A9 single walled tanks. containing meet deadly noalear Waste from<br />
defend.Eduction ( ao offensive m.'oduciion ) of these tanks almost CA are<br />
leaking (27) add no real solution In eight. The thake, and many ether hecards<br />
are deadly heserds to all living things, 'headed included.<br />
While the point in Ouestlan today is nuclear waste disnosal, high and low level, 2.5.5<br />
The Chern all accident sets anxample Of the Inherent danger. of a<br />
ompatitive runaway wience add technologyprogram or as I like to vie. 1t, the<br />
Ltliecriml.ute oarsult of science And technology a aired by Interest groundmainly<br />
the military anal those who profit financially the a eoutive and 3eglalative.branches<br />
of car government cheery!<br />
THE FACT IS, THESE EXPLANATIONS ARE PURE BUNK AND WE AREN'T BUYING IT.<br />
THE FACT IS, THE ADMINISTRATION IS PLAYING POLITICS.<br />
THE EAST GETS THE POWER, AND WE GET THE GARBAGE.<br />
THE FACT IS, WE HERE IN THE NORTHWEST HAVE LEARNED JUST HOW FAIR AND<br />
REA80NRBLE THE PROCESS IS. AND IN NOVEMBER, AFTER THE LEGISLATURE HAS MET TO<br />
PUT A REFERENDUM ON THE BALLOT, THE PEOPLE OF WASHINGTON STATE ARE GOING TO<br />
HAVE A CHANCE TO TELL WASHINGTON OC JUST WHAT THEY THINK OF THE<br />
ADMINISTRATION PLAYING POLITICS WITH OUR LAND AND OUR LIVES.<br />
We have dot awed learnei to cape with presant nuclear waste. at least not safely,<br />
and Age we want to ac Ovulate m and more at a dizzying rate-in <strong>Hanford</strong>. Net<br />
Only the tanks are leaking as mentioned drevlously, but .there are lacks underground<br />
and aepladeifiea reports will not reach to wul 1 0 to zo ynard- TatTTm .<br />
antl, deal ... ified remrta reforming to melt sows or ne melt a -F. 1 the '.,.. 4.3.1<br />
19503 and 19603 lustily ayremark3. It also fills the people of one country with<br />
A deep as.. of atorsh ... 1. sM mistrust. Th. tranaeentation of .pent hot rode,<br />
graa1u, to the subeequa¢t csnverelea to dlitonlm pohas aeve=A1 gave hammed..<br />
WE ARE GOING TO ORGANIZE. WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO SPEAK WITH<br />
ONE VOICE. THEY MAY BE THREE THOUSAND MILES. AWAY, BUT I GUARANTEE THEY'RE<br />
GOING TO HEAR US LOUD AND CLEAR.<br />
Muc h has been written by research scientists. w umbared by the Pentagon and/or<br />
_ sanufactiaers interests. They imply test If the Nuclear Waste Board and<br />
the DOE will at head their advice, og state will be facing a.Pearard.. four.-.<br />
If a future at .11-<br />
2.1.1 OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES HAVEN'T MADE R DENT, .For most.<br />
st.. the salatidn to ..I. West. dleweal 1. not to Mass it on to another<br />
MAYBE YOU COULD DELIVER A MESSAGE — A VERY SIMPLE MESSAGE -- TO THE FOLKS state; We need .net On g me two sites, we need tan, twenty or thirty, arefecably clone<br />
IN WASHINGTON OC FROM THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON STATE.. (THUMBS DOWN GESTURE) to vhad. ¢uiIs...is is laim, Mredudo, . the same .,all.. to Taiw an .rent andnlw<br />
rode--we do.net need m¢
i fr<br />
F<br />
ti 1<br />
074 0'74<br />
H<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
Statement of Estella B. Leopold JUL 18 IM<br />
Department of Be i.e.<br />
0074<br />
University of Washington WMD IVIIjbN<br />
CLIMATE CHANGE<br />
The <strong>EIS</strong> makes su perficial mention of possible impacts from<br />
climate Chour. but the treatment Is inade quate in terms of human<br />
safewty. Considering the importance at long harm conditions, and<br />
3.5.6.1 ea lth of modern data climate systems (unexplored by DOE)<br />
this topic in short shrift, is undo..... two and I. ..fully<br />
inadequate. Just.entioning a problem is no substitute for an<br />
analysis.<br />
3<br />
The safet y of the buried .defense wastes as well.. as the<br />
repository must be considered on a geologic time9[ale. Th.<br />
federa l. suidelines indicate that radioactive wastes must not leak<br />
into the accessible environment for 10,000 years. That figure<br />
.5.6.1 should better he 100,000 years, Considering the length of time<br />
before the high level wastes ..aidtlec.. to a safe " level".<br />
10,000 years i x the 'age of our vilisation. 100,000 years is<br />
the age of later Stone age cultures•<br />
An analysis of past timing of climate and glaciation an such a<br />
timescale can be a basis for projecting the future climate for<br />
astern Washington.<br />
e The reason this 1s relevant is that any Change in climate means<br />
Change in hydrology.<br />
Long range climate can now be predicted because it i<br />
established that our climate is forced be orbital Characteristics<br />
on earth, not mentioned by the <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
The Present interglacial, 10,000 9rs long se far, has been<br />
..line Over the last 4000 years. TM1e last interglaCial CompleN,<br />
recorded be detailed fossil pollen data in France, sh ... d 3 w<br />
periods , each as warm a as today, each lasting as 10,009 years and<br />
_.... each entling rather O .ly with arJar ice is v.. . t in the Vosges<br />
.<br />
p . .took only C . 1 110<br />
]0 y ears for tem perate tt to be<br />
replaced Sc a boreal n radian type near Paris. In n the ye third<br />
cooling,<br />
Scanar an i reached Amsterdam only 4000 bears after<br />
the warmest part t of theCenterglaciaL<br />
this figure. This projection is sntetl, s it appears to be<br />
a guess. Pat based on serious a sroa.h.<br />
Under A full glacial climate, catastrophic flood. like the<br />
Missoula floods of the late-glacial accross eastern Washington,<br />
could wipe out the alluvium of the HHnford Reservation, change<br />
the position of the Columbia River. r ing part or all of the<br />
buried waste tanks, the reactors, asd gthe Purex Plant (net<br />
mentioned).<br />
Recent flootls in relation to HO.1—d ... dealt with<br />
su p erficiall y . Floods of historical ma gnitude (1949 and 1894)<br />
with about 21.,000 cubic meters/sec "would inundate the l00-F area<br />
but woultl be of little c e to the rest of the <strong>Site</strong>' (p<br />
4.10 no documentation). However such floods would im pact ground<br />
water .levels awa y from the river and flush out existin g wastes in<br />
the alluvium into the raver.<br />
The <strong>EIS</strong> considers failure of the grand Coulee Dam. But it only<br />
Considers scenarios for 25% and 902 failure. It sa ys the 100<br />
areas and J00 area along the r mould be flooded, but falls to<br />
Point out the relation to the N VRee,tor which would indeed be<br />
flooded. DOE's Ca pacit y to shut dome o Op erate the Plant 'woultl<br />
be insignificant. Such a condition suld u s pell severe disaster<br />
with • grave environmental c nse guences for the re9,ion of. the<br />
Columbia Basin and the liver Ṫhe HPPS Nuclear Plants woultl also<br />
be flooded. DOE fails to deal with these obvious hazards.<br />
The <strong>EIS</strong> do.. at take ^^ !to ac .t that if the Grand Coulee<br />
Dam<br />
thePriest R rw 0 m just above the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Reservation r ic a old probably 90 too. and this event mi ght increase<br />
Public ha2ar tl5 b y anofheY order of agnitutle.<br />
a<br />
v<br />
In ........ the RIB does not adequatel y address the topic of<br />
environmental and climate. change. With all the geological<br />
ex p ertise 005 has brou g ht to bear an the 218, it has avoided the<br />
most serious problem of all-- time and long term h y drology. This<br />
is a fatal flaw of the <strong>EIS</strong> and the Project.<br />
3.5.6.8<br />
3.5.6.5<br />
3.5.6.6<br />
This means that the earth probably will experience the<br />
begining of a major glaciation. within the next 4-5000 years. A<br />
delay estimated at ca 2000 yr. Could be ..need by CO2 i<br />
of the atmosphere (however, the s called greenhouse effect ® does<br />
not .... to be happening). C.Pmarvativel y projecting from the<br />
past 100,000 .Bare, . shift to a glacial climate should b Co.,<br />
in 5-7000 yrs.<br />
RECEIVED( DOERL<br />
I$ue-<br />
JUL2-r WG 0074<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
DOE assumes that Precipitation might double in eastern<br />
3.5.6.1 Washington um and Pr Y. ..is Only a mall increase O water entering<br />
the Surface aq uifer. The <strong>EIS</strong> does . not explain how arrived<br />
at
0 75<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
>aP.rl^...,.N „r EwrRY FN^HUO n.Ar1.E<br />
F.H.r.1 EaTN1AE A.an.r1N. JUL 18 1988<br />
S..NNIN, :n,:mNEVOH 00-79<br />
ONI, 15, USE<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
I AN NAVY Ar=N 7273 SOUTH 12S[h S . OMET. SEAT212, VUL 981 78 .<br />
If UE. MN TO NO 'THA( T'li, S,i4'S OF HBM INGION AND US RESIDENTS HAVE A1,Mbl ACCM&D NONE<br />
1<br />
2.1 e THAN MOM SHARE OF THE NAT ION'S MICIAM NASLE.<br />
8E ALL CARS MOM'1'nE GENtl 10. OF F&OVIS THAT NIIL NAVE TO LIVE IN TOM OWTOS AFTER IN<br />
ME 110 WHOM HENS. N'E HAVE A NLSPoI6YtlILITY NOT TO PoLW'1'8 THEIR "fa SNPPLILF, THE AM<br />
THEY IVILL GAVE TO UNEAI'HE "D THE FOOD CHAIN TREY WILL SEND TO EYIST ....AND FOR THAT MA TTER,<br />
ROT TO PASS US 'CHE HoE.ENWOS 'TAX BJRDRN THAT WILL HE NECESSARY 1'0 STORE, WNrrQR AND PROTEAN<br />
llw L LVE'S MOM NIICLSAR 15ASIS CONTAMINATION.<br />
SINCE NiYWY 90}' OF COIMSUCIAL MCI RAN NASIE IS GENERATED IN THE PRETEEN PART OF THE UNIT=<br />
STATES ISN'T IT INCJWHEMNSIUIE 'THAI THE FEDERAL GOVEMML •NT IS RON TELLING U8 MAY SANFORD<br />
IS TABS ONLY PERMANENT REPOSITORY BOESEDI<br />
0 75<br />
PAUE 2 1d.:v .c aun<br />
I 'MINK DUE Thl !G Y,!AY DISTURBS ME THE MGM L4 l'NSP. UP UNTIL "i. ME PeD.41. UOIERMIIM AND<br />
THE WCILBILLIUN WLGR NUCLGUt INWSLHY NAVE BE®1 NWT REWCI'ANT TO INFORM CITIZENS ABOUT<br />
THIS ISSUE. MUCH. J MST THEY HAVE &A ID HAVE SIR DAIF_TRUI'HS AND EVASIVE, BWtl AS NFL=,<br />
MAINTAINING THAT THE SIX-MMOM PANEL APPOINTED BY THE WE TO INIVISIIGATE THE H REAMBE SAPEfY,2 , 5 . 5<br />
AM REALLY UDI A GROUP OR COMMITTEE TRACT FEDYUAL LN RESUME SHOW DIED ':D MR MENTIONS TO THR<br />
PUNLIC. BUT, RATHER, SIX I:IDIVIDJAIS WHO HAVE, AM IIIU IN 2,, FUTURE, BE A TIMW BRINGING,<br />
GOT NET TIBBS AND MAY ' CHER P:h(B. MEN, BEGINS<br />
M,. ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS TEIJ.IHO US NM<br />
TO WURRY .... OH, INGU:AR UMCX NILE BE Vll'RIF'ISD ASD SAFT;LY SPORED MEN THEY Ul THAT F RANCS ']<br />
FS HAVlUG 'THUUd" .11TH TI'S 'JII'RIFICAfION PLANT. MY<br />
'I p ''II<br />
NOT 'TRUEMM,Y' TEIy-_USi4l'yAI'THg ,T_YC,1r yC4 Me 1 e U, 1Q<br />
Iftl.0 CIJ LLC KL<br />
BUY FOR SAFELY NANA.:ILG HUCLE N( WASTE IS. AS T6T ' JNg1UliN.<br />
JUL 18 1986 pG-/5<br />
GDOGRATIC BOVIANMEIR<br />
PO DS EM U N THE INFORMED AND ADervE.PAEfmIPA'l'IOx oN//If)01SaMZ<br />
-1" REQUIRES THAT GOlIMEWAL BODIES PoO1'EC'f THE CITIZENS RIGNY TO ANDY.<br />
ILOST OF ME HAVE ONLY A VAGUE IDEA OF IVW GORE ON AT THE SANFORD RFSRNVATION. TOM MAY IR<br />
N3.4.2.2<br />
IT W111, HE INWREDIMX EYPFNSIVE TO MOVE SPIDR ABEL TO SANFORD. MAN TN TRANSIT IT WILL BB<br />
SUBJECT To ACCIDENTS. THEFT AM TERRORIST MACK.<br />
THE UNITED STAIRS DSPN'PYENf OF ENERGY HAS IDENTIFIED NEARLY 60) SCHISMS FACILITI ES CURSENTUT<br />
GBWLEfB OR EXPECTED TO BECOME OBSOLETE IN THE SONY FLAN MEANS. AS N SGNPIS. THE SUIPPIMMYNT<br />
ATOMIC PoAN STATION, JUS T 'BUTT OP PIITSBURCN. PRI SYLVN IA , BY TODLY'S STANDARDS AVERY SWID<br />
RB. XM. WAS DeCOWIiSIONED AND PAM' OF IT SHIPPED TO SA NFORD IIST YEAR. IT YOUR OURD 7.800<br />
MILES VIA RIFER, MW. PANAMA CLNAL, THRO UG H PORrIAND ND UP TH EN CO LUMB IA RIVE@ 'f0 )WINTERS.<br />
NOM 2 NILLIU.Y PEOPLE. 1.2 FOREIGN OF TUBE IY THE PNTLNFVAICOUFNH AREA. LIVE AWN) THE<br />
COWISL RIV ER. THE PORTLAND CUSTOMS DISTRICT HANDLED $4.1 BILISOB III EN FORC E ADD J3.N BIILIW<br />
I IMPORTS WRING 1984. THS MOSCOW FALSE OF ONE PONT DISTRICTS ALOES TIE R IVER IN SHE<br />
3.2.6.1 BILLION. TRUE... SNFEH AND COWNESOLL FISHING BEING MUCH NEEITH TO ME REGION. R ANGING<br />
HISMACYI VB INSfE 18 A THREAT W ALL OF DF83R.<br />
NEIGHBORS TO CU R,,CE 8. MIAARE, A USDOB OFFICIAL Itl DECOnI24I0YIEG. SANFORD WILL =0<br />
RECEIVE SOME 230 TRUCKLOADS OF SHIPPIEGFORY DADIDUCCNE D®x$ - A 2, 000 IMIT STALIN HAUL.<br />
PAM' DB WE I'0 THE FACf THAT FROM ITS INCEPTION IN 1943 AS PERT OF ME OOVEMUSES ,Z SMOMTN<br />
PROJECT TO M AN UFACTURE ATOM BOERS, 1 1 BASED, PON ITS ""ICE<br />
WAS SO MOUNT THAT EVEN TUBES<br />
WNO WOMEN TM Ntl MHE MIME OF WHAT THEY WEN PRODUCING. MEN Op ITS AC'L p W'IFS SINCE NAYS<br />
BEEN CARRIED OUT IN N AM OF GREAT SSC,,,Y.<br />
DUUlRING BACK ON 'TH OS E YEARS 2. PETER LINBAGSI. GENERAL COMM FM THE p,SM,,RM OF HEALTH,<br />
EDUCATION AND WSIFAHS TOLD A JOINT CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE IN APRIL OF 19X9.<br />
'THE NERICN PHIFLS ME NOT INFORMED OF THE EVIDENCE THAT YNS WHItINH WIRING THE<br />
MICE 1x1 196On OF YEN UNCERTAINTY AD TO THE NSALfH EFFECTS FROM VARIATION ...I NWID<br />
8AY M ORE WAS A SEVERAL ATMOSPHERE AND A' 1111E MAY THE AMBHICN FRIAR. STYES THE FACTS,<br />
WOULD NOT MARE TIER BIow RLSS.S"mr MONSOON.'<br />
EHAT I OWN AB OUT NUCLEAR IYAS'T8 NAXWEER COMER FROM RAN, MOM W SURFER BPSAA ON ON THIN<br />
SUBJECT. I'M GRA TEFUL TO X88 INVESZGA'f IYB RBPUREMS OF ME 88PTTU TIMES, BEATTIE ME,<br />
INfEJ,IHGEICBIt, THE GROSSMAN ND THE IIILADRLPBL INQUIRES FOR PROVIDING W MUCH BARBECUES<br />
-,HFORME• ION. PUBLICATIONS BY 'HE HARRING ON PHYSICIANS FER SOCIAL 8(SFONeIBILITY. 'm ExAGUB<br />
OF NBIMR Awma of S PoRNM. ME MASON OF VNEM vMMS BWCATIOM FOND. X88 RENN DETER FEE,
F a<br />
@<br />
k<br />
^Jg<br />
f'<br />
`f<br />
j<br />
?y<br />
xt<br />
€ 75<br />
M<br />
f3<br />
W<br />
2.5.5<br />
Pn+ti 3 ... BON lwdlv,,IIY<br />
IRE :wiB 1fIV[ull 1WCL6An 9A 3 , JW D. DR. ALLEN y . aSl,S N AUD U:UlY Bi1JOK'S "BWI-ING IN THE<br />
HIND" a.0 .. uIIMD 001h,N SJJWS AND tVJL11ATI01ti HAVE SEEN Wlif I.U.L.<br />
IT AIJU Y 1LKU1 AS A11t y :u1tN I HEAD IN EWUICE ARTICLE THAT rRE DEPARIWENf OF<br />
3NENGY AN, 1'TS CUN1'HACI'Uid,... HOD,,LL HANTHED OPS flOM3, BA'1'TELLE, IiESTINGUOUSE HANF'ORD,<br />
AND UNC WJCLE H IN ABTNI S...WIL SPEND MORE THAN 15 LIUMN THIS Y AE AM WaRMY TD WORKERS,<br />
INCLUDING AN OU'E31DI PUHLIC-HFUf1UNS PINY, CO DELP ON THE DNFANSE •WAl"& IHSSE'<br />
ALL I ti K IS MALL TH6 DEPARTMENT OF SNMQY, McENSS Di:PAH'fYENf AND ME ESCLEW INDUSTRY<br />
LNEL :I TIN US AND SELL IT "LIKE It IS.- AS SAN MEN PHOBAELY ACRES ON SOME FORM OF<br />
J<br />
3.3.4.2 MONIf0,dD He'fNISVASLE SfONAOE THAT HE w&LL MAIMINED AND PROTECTED... WEN THOUGH 1'NAT,<br />
Too, IS RISKY.<br />
2. 5 . V R SEEMS ONLY LOGICAL l'0 SeoP FUNTHEH PAOWCTIOY OF CDElDROM AND DEFENSE NUOLEAR WASTE<br />
UMIL hS CAN SAFELY DISPOSE OF V.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 18 1986 oo15<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
HOW DOES DOE SHRINK HI LEVEL WASTES?<br />
RECEIVED DOEAL<br />
JUL 18 1986<br />
00-M<br />
WMOIVISION<br />
Th. U9 De partment of Ener gy bas earlier ind-at d! it must bury<br />
500,000 cubic yards of transuranic wastes. The HIS cites 32.000<br />
cubic motors of mntaminatod soil.. NOW we beer recently that the<br />
volume is 52 million gallons of waste.<br />
One way we fear DOE is shrinkin g the volume of defense waste 2.4.1.8<br />
it must take care of is to redefine what high-level and low-level<br />
waste i<br />
s . Under their n new standards the <strong>Hanford</strong> plant has been<br />
able to reclassify 9 of the 12 million cubic meters of soil<br />
contaminated or disposed liquid p{utonium waste .. •low-level".<br />
and to reduce the ra in9 3 million cubic meters wwithout<br />
explanation to 32,000 cubic meters.<br />
The now standards may also allow <strong>Hanford</strong> to leave high-level<br />
.sets<br />
in at ora g e. tanks- contrar y to p ublic law- le. cases where<br />
the tanks ' have. tailed and cannot be removed.<br />
The loo phole in this Procedure is hi g hl y dandermus for the<br />
peo p le of Washing ton and the region. If one takes hi g h level<br />
waste ' m s it with enough soil, it can be termed as "low level'<br />
and thrown in a trench n , o p en to the environment. This is no wa y<br />
to r a business, particularl y one as seriousl y devastating as<br />
nuclear waste!<br />
0^ LCOQa6 `.l<br />
'. 5668 i141, N e,<br />
$, ,ti(t we .<br />
3.1.1.9<br />
2 .5 .<br />
C<br />
J
1F<br />
R,<br />
'k<br />
3 FS<br />
077 UO<br />
N<br />
L`L"!VFLJ LOL-kL<br />
WALBRIDGE J. POWELL<br />
JUL IS M<br />
ENGINEER&GEOLOGIST 12061 232-5295<br />
4314 island crest Way mercer Island,WA 98040VIM DIVISION<br />
JULY 15,1986<br />
ON SATURDAY JUNE Z. 1 STARTED MY 60TH YEAR ON EARTH BY READING AN ARTICLE IN THE<br />
SEATTLE P-1 WHICH STATED THAT THE LEVELS OF RADIATION AT KIEV, A CITY OF 2.5 MILLION<br />
PEOPLE, WERE APPROXIMATELY 15 TO JO TIMES NORMAL,THAT ABORTIONS HAD BEEN (,ECOMMENDED<br />
FOR SOME WOMEN CAUGHT IN THE RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT FROM THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT. THE<br />
ARTICLE WENT ON TO SAY THAT 100,000 PEOPLE EVACUATED FROM THE 19 MILE DANGER ZONE<br />
RUN A NIGH RISK OF DEVELOPING LEUKEMIA AND THYROID CANCERf THAT REGIONS OF ITALY HAD<br />
ISSUED WARNINGS ABOUT CHERRIES AND PRODUCTS MADE FROM THE MILK OF SHEEP AND GLUTS;<br />
AND SWEDEN HAD CANCELLED THE ANNUAL SUMMER REINDEER HUNT.<br />
v<br />
^ LET US NOW SUBSTITUTE SPOKANE, SEATTLE, AND PORTLAND AND OTHER SMALLER CITIES FOR<br />
THE KIEV AREA, THE COLUMBIA FOR THE PRIPYAT, AND TWO WEEKS IN 1986 FOR 1942 TO THE<br />
iD<br />
!3 PRESENL THE LANGUAGE FROM RUSSIAN TO U. S. BUREAUGARBLE.<br />
WHAT THE RUSSIANS UNFORTUNATELY ACCOMPLISHED IN A SHORT TIME, WE ALREADY HAVE,<br />
0. ACCOMPLISHED. THE HANFORD OPEN AIR THRUSHES HAVE LEAKED SINCE THEY WERE INSTALLED.<br />
L)<br />
THE N REACTOR HAS SPEWED RADIOACTIVE GARBAGE SINCE IT WAS FIRST ACTIVATED. PURER<br />
O<br />
>• IS VOMITING RADIOACTIVITY INTO THE AIR RIGHT NOW. RADIOACTIVITY IS SEEPING INTO<br />
THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT THIS INSTANT.<br />
LET US EXAMINE HOW WE HAVE COME TO INHERIT THIS LIVING HELL. WE ALL KNOW AB gWT THE<br />
HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL EFFORT TO PRODUCE AN ATOMIC BOMB WRING WORLD WAR II. WITH THE<br />
ADVENT OF PEACE WE HAD THIS STABLE OF BOY WONDERS WHO WOULD BE UNEMPLOYED SO THE<br />
DEFENSE DAPARTMENT DECIDED TO PROMOTE NUCLEAR BOMBS, MISSILES AND POWER PLANTS.<br />
OF COURSE, TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY BOMB AATERIAL.FUEL, AND MATERIALS FOR TESTING<br />
IN NEVADA,EHIWETOK,BIKINI,ANO JUST OFFSHORE OF SAN DIEGO AN ENORMOUS CADRE OF<br />
BUREAUCRATS AND CONTRACTORS WAS DEVELOPED, THEY ARE STILL WITH US BUT THEIR COUNT<br />
HAS MULTIPLIED TEN TIMES OVER,<br />
AS THE YEARS HAVE PASSED, BOMBS WERE SET OFF ABOVE AND BELOW THE GROUND AND OCEAN,<br />
OVER 250,000 CIVILIANS AND SERVICEMEN ARE KNOW TO HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO TO VAST<br />
I WALBRIDGE J. POWELL To DOE JULY 15.1986 PAGE 2 1 .. JUL 18 1986 641<br />
QUANTITIES OF RADIOACTIVITY, POWER PLANTS HAVE BEEN BUILT AND HAVE MELTENHM DIYI$ION<br />
DOWN AND VENTED (THREE MILE ISLAND LAND THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, NOW THE<br />
DEPT. OF ENERGY STILL MAINTAINS THAT A LITTLE RADIOACTIVITY WILL NOT HURT ANYONE.<br />
THAT IS ANALOGOUS TO SAYING THAT A TIGER IS ONLY SLIGHTLY FEROCIOUS OR THAT IT<br />
IS EASY TO KEEP. AN ELEPHANT AS A PET IN A SMALL HUT. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE I WOULD<br />
ASK WHY DO TIGER KEEPERS HAVE SUCH HOBBY FINGERS AND IN THE SECOND I WOULD ASK WHY<br />
THE EIffWNT 's MASTER SLEPT.DUTSIDE.<br />
WASTE WAS DUMPED OUTSIDE AT HANFORD BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST TOO LAZY TO FIGURE OUT<br />
WHAT TO DO WITH IT AND BES ID ES, IT WAS GOVERNMENT LAND AND YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU<br />
WANT ON GOVERNMENT LAND IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL DEFENSE.<br />
IN THE 19505 A TREMENDOUS EXPLOSION OCCURRED IN THE URALS OF RUSSIA. SPENT FUEL<br />
3) /^ p<br />
HAD REACTED AND CONTAMINATED HUNDREDS OF SQUARE MILES. THAT AREA IS NOT IN USE TODAY ,4 ,3 . H<br />
AMR WILL FOREVER BE UNTENABLE. ON THE HANFORD RESERVATION WE HAVE THE SAME SITUATION<br />
AND IT COULD GET WORSE.<br />
THE FOLLOWING COULD HAPPEN IN THE AREA OF THE Z-TRENCHESf I. LIQUID WASTE HELD IN<br />
AR Z-TRENCH COULD LEAK AS IT HAS BEEN FOR FORTY YEARS. P.. THE wAsrE PdKTLATES LYNN AND<br />
IS ENTRAPPED AND CONCENTRATED BY COLUMNAR CHROMATOGRAPHY IN WHICH DIFFERENT<br />
3.4.3.8<br />
SUBSTANCES ARE SEPARATED OUT BY THE SOIL AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS DEPENDING ON THEIR<br />
MOLECULAR WEIGHTS M PROPERTIES. THE PLUTONIUM 1S ADSORBED I BOUND TO THE SURFACE<br />
OF OIL PARTICLES BY MOLECULAR BONDS) INTO A RELATIVELY THIN LAYER OF THE SOIL.<br />
A CHAIN REACTION IS SET OFF BY WATER PERCOLATING INTO THE P LU TONIUM RICH SOI L. THE<br />
HIGH TEMPERATURE OF THE PLUTONIUM MOULD CAUSE MASS I VE QUANTITIES OF HIGH PRESSURE<br />
STEAM TO FORM, THE EXPLOSION WOULD RESEMBLE A MUD VOLCANO AND WOULD PROJECT INTENSay<br />
RADIOACTIVE AEROSOLS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, THE END RESULT WOULD BE CONTAMINATION OF THE<br />
WNEATLANDS OF EASTERN WASHINGTON,CITIES CONTAMINATED, THE RIVER AND SUERFACE WATER<br />
MADE PERMANENTLY UNUSABLE. THE AREA WOULD BE ECOLOGICALLY DEAD AMU 1 19U Nre"lf<br />
WOULD WISH FOR DEATHS RELEASE. -<br />
TODAY WE HAVE THE DOE INVOLVED IN: DISPOSAL OFCICILIAN WASTE, DISPOSAL OF MILITARY<br />
WASTE INCLUDING 1 7 .000 TONS OF WASTE IN PLACE PLUS.NUCLFAR FUEL FROM SURFACE AS
1 0<br />
HAI<br />
07'7 078<br />
JUL 18 1986 0611<br />
I NALBfl 1aGE J. POwfu TO DOE JUL, 15, 1986 PAGE 31 11M E Vi iI IC,<br />
WELL AS SUBSURFACE VESSELS AS WELL AS THEIR REACTOR CASINGS (100 NUCLEAR SUBMARINES<br />
IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS ); DEVELOPING A MINIATURE REACTOR FOR THE STAR NABS PUMPING LASER<br />
A<br />
°cam 1 i DOE-Rl<br />
\V^^a UL 3 8 p88 JUL<br />
PI My<br />
606<br />
The Washington Public Interest Researcll"W' "FN<br />
5635 Uai miry WyNE - Sono. WA SAROS (306)5E6RNN1<br />
ANE OF THESE WAS SCHEOULWFOR LAUNCH ON A SPACE SHUTTLE CLOSELY FOLLOWING CHALLENGER<br />
AND ONE SNNLR HAVE BEEN ON BOARD THE TITAN MISSILE THAT EXPLODED. JUST ABOVE ITS PAD<br />
Statement on the Inadequacies of the O.S.Dept. of SnergyS<br />
Sanford Defends Wastes S.I.S.<br />
N<br />
N<br />
Ln<br />
2.5.5<br />
APRIL 18. 1986); PLOTTING THE SHIPMENT OF WASTE FROM A DEFENSE DEPARTMENT LOAN TO d<br />
COMMERCIAL REACTOR IN TAIWAN THROOGH THE PORT OF SEATTLE FOR RECYCLING AT SAVANNAH<br />
3000 MILES AWAY; EXPERIMENTING WITH A WASTE ISOLATION PLANT IN CARLSBAD NEW MEXICO)<br />
ATTEMPTING TO DISIGN A SAFE CASK FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN WASTE<br />
ITNGET DATE IS 19% ALTHOUGH SHIPMENTS FROM ME M ILE ISLAND ARE MRIVING AT WNFgO EVES WEEKI;<br />
CFEMTING THE RFEN P.M, FOR P n,,FICH OF 9YID IAp I. AND PIACEmi. CF SEEM FUEL F" THE FAST<br />
FU LEST FACILITY (CRUSHES WERE DE oU THE DoE ENVIRONIENTAL ("PACT STATDENT ALY 7, 086); AND<br />
INTEmERNDE WIT11k. N]ff.RI G ALE'S EFFECTS. ttI DEVELOP A SYMPOSIUM OF U.S. AND SOVIET Sonco OWiGEU<br />
WITH DETERMINING THE SFECI1ML$ OF NNE MAKDON TWECESQU S IN ALLEVIATING TE EFFECTS ED E ENTI SLEE<br />
TO RADIO"CFIVITY<br />
'file BIWf/NffOtTIC MITI Krw1 AS THE DOE ( I Gu. IT OF TfPNOVENT U WIVI ON ) IS &M WSYUY<br />
C(OIECFINi FALSE DATA TO JJSIIFS T£ EDICT OE HMYORD AS THE IDLE NUCLEAR WASTE FACILITY IN THE Ur -<br />
0, OF TE PRIME CfMIINCUMS IN Au OF TIE DOE'S CuU CcTS Is R(C RgpIfL4 I T<br />
STwm Ara TIE ^ .^.<br />
OE FOCM,9.L'S WOM ON U.F. PRP.ERS,<br />
WE CAN THEREFORE MAKE ASSUMPTIONS As TO IE eNLm MV RE-IMam<br />
I MOOD SULEST TNT YEN CCMACT YOUR CJAWSWF..N TrMRROW NO T . N L SEEN TO PF. WT UP PAN<br />
ON dMNEU; IU EUEOPE ANU ASIA. THEY SFFM Tt 11111 TNT TIE WCLFME OF [iiOT E AND ASIA ME MODE IN-<br />
FOUDNI THAN THAT a THEIR MM F. F.<br />
TIEAE IS ONLY ONS WAY THAT WE CAN CETAIN C.Do OF THE IT.E AND THAT IS TUTAXCI FIMMIFES. WIN YOD<br />
CA LL IF WRITE (PFEEERULY) YOUR FUNIPTE101 TE LL THEN TAT YIMI TH. THAT TIE ITT. IS art OF WRO-<br />
IM TEAT YUI MN YUB FRIENDSKNOW OF A GIMiD AO,ICATE FCA TKIH OFFUE..MST MIGHT VOTE 10 NT<br />
D EC FINIS TO IT. AFTER ALL, SHOULD WE TryF"ATF nT RENICRKY WNSF MM1in S1v1.D IT " WE Mi AQUA;<br />
P n<br />
MSIFAR VVSI6ID RE MWIET flNE AND D F1' IT htlE / / '/ / ip l) T 4—Aa ; f<br />
FL<br />
VUy I»I rcF ! F'^ L<br />
The Department. of Energy: is pieceaealing the public to<br />
death. They refuse to discuss all related Sanford radioactive and<br />
toxic waste problems in one Environmental Impact Statement and<br />
one decision-making process, The issues are interrelated and the<br />
cumulative . impacts from all the wastes at <strong>Hanford</strong> are so<br />
2.3.1.14<br />
tremendous as to .probably make <strong>Hanford</strong> the world's largest and<br />
most complex toxic waste dump. The people of the State deserve<br />
better treatment than to have the significance of the issues hid<br />
from them and their participation discouraged by- the DOE's<br />
insistence on piecemealing the clean up problem in multiple 2 5.5<br />
thousand page. <strong>EIS</strong>ea, The DoE evidently hopes that many of the<br />
problems at <strong>Hanford</strong> will fall between the cracks of public<br />
concern. Thus, the heart of our concern is that the Defense Waste<br />
918 is totally inadequate in its scope:<br />
The public deserve.$-to. know right now that this<br />
Environmental Impact Statement processof the DoE's:fe being<br />
35.4 3 J<br />
dominated by cost considerations rather thatn the search for the ..<br />
beat available technology or achievement of the maximum possible<br />
cleanup of contaminated areas. Any private industry which<br />
indiscriminately dumped it toxic wastes the way the 'DOE has 2.<br />
would .see its officials in jail and would be ordered to achieve L L 1<br />
the maximum possible-cleanup -.regardless of coat. Our testimony<br />
fecusSea. oa the incredibly flawed process being used by the<br />
Department of Energy - your purpose seems to be not to clean up<br />
your wastes but to convince the public that you have done a in<br />
Order to continue producing .huge quantities Of wastes at Sanford<br />
as the byproduct of weapons production.<br />
We. challenge the operative goals of the process undertaken<br />
by the DOE in releasing the draft .<strong>EIS</strong>.' Spokespeople for the DoE<br />
have said they wish to use this process to determine what<br />
are<br />
acceptable to the public<br />
TrsdeofẸS ore simply not acceptable to the public when it<br />
cornea to clean up and disposal of the vast quantities of toxic<br />
and. Iadioactive wastes dumped or stored at <strong>Hanford</strong>. We can not<br />
accept trading off either'. public health or the environment of a<br />
vast area of central Washington in exchange for saving the DoE<br />
money<br />
Ṅo private Industry could . seek to have the public consider<br />
coat 'tradeoffs' in the clean up of a toxic waste deep under the<br />
Federal Superfund Law (CERCLA).. By what right does the DoE<br />
consider itself subject to a. different standard when it comes to<br />
2.<br />
'2,2.3<br />
what is undoubtedly this nation's moat complex and 2 . q L . 3<br />
toxic waste dump - <strong>Hanford</strong>?<br />
We demand an explanation as to the weight the DOE is giving<br />
to cost savings when deciding on win place stabilization" versus<br />
an actual clean up and disposal of the wastes they Have dumped at<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong>. The <strong>EIS</strong> quotes from the <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Management<br />
Plan (1975) to state that the decision will be made to go forward
All 7.<br />
078 078<br />
N<br />
T<br />
3. 5.1.26<br />
RECEIVE() DOERL<br />
duL i8 X88 4879<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
with to place stabilization of wastes rather than actual clean up<br />
and disposal in a repository if the DoE determines that "short<br />
term risks and costs of retrieval and transportation outweigh the<br />
environmental benefits of disposal in a geologic mined<br />
repository.^ (<strong>EIS</strong> at vi)<br />
We cannot allow the DOE to decide that the cost of cleaning<br />
up the toxic waste dump, that they have made 600 square miles of<br />
2.2.3 central Washington into, is a more important criteria than the<br />
long term health of our public and environment for the eternity<br />
that these wastes pose a hazard for so long as they are left<br />
untouched or swept under a few feet of soil.<br />
The scope of this HIS is also inadequate in that it wholly<br />
fails to describe for the public the scope and nature of existing<br />
contamination of the soils and groundwater of the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Reservation. Ignored are hundreds of contaminated soil sites,<br />
contaminated ground water streams, the chemical and radionucleide<br />
content of soil disposal cribs and even the high level waste<br />
tanks. Replacing the required description in the <strong>EIS</strong> of the<br />
actual contamination of the <strong>Hanford</strong> environment are the most<br />
.amazing public relations statements and terminology. Funny how<br />
the DoE has millions to spend on the PR for its defense waste<br />
management program but, cost is a factor in whether they<br />
clean up after themselves.<br />
Rather than inform the public about the true nature of the<br />
severe threat that <strong>Hanford</strong> wastes now pose due to leaks and<br />
deliberate dumping practices, the SIR contains statements like<br />
2.2.12<br />
this a to management practices at <strong>Hanford</strong> were shown ( in the<br />
1915 Environmentalnmental Statement for <strong>Hanford</strong> Waste Management and<br />
Operations ) to safely and effectively isolate the waste on an<br />
interim basis." (<strong>EIS</strong> Foreword page v.) -<br />
With Uranium in the groundwater; plumed of contaminated<br />
groundwater from soil dumping heading towards the Columbia River;<br />
500,000 gallons of high level nuclear wastes leaked from single<br />
2.2.12<br />
shell tank.; sail heavily ebn[amina[ed .nouns the tanks;<br />
Plutonium from <strong>Hanford</strong> in the air and soil of downwind<br />
communities) HOW DARE THE DOE SAY :"Waste management practice. at<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> were shown to safely and effectively isolate the waste on<br />
an interim basis'?<br />
Only to the DoE can 30 feet of dirt and crushed rock on top<br />
G<br />
3.3.1.11.<br />
o[- leaking high level nuclear waste tanks be called a permanent<br />
'diction or disposal of nuclear wastes. But with the expenditure<br />
of enough PR money they go one step further and call this a<br />
^geotextile barrier-. To the public it's still nothing more than<br />
30 feet of dirt shovelled on top of the most dangerous wastes<br />
known to humankind. Putheraore. there Is absoluteley no proof<br />
that this is any mare effective at isolating these radioactive<br />
wastes from the environment than the Doe's literally, ae reel as<br />
figuratively, sweeping the leaking vast. task. under m rug.<br />
The DoE has excluded from the scope of the HIS any<br />
discussion of the significant technological and geologic problems<br />
with emplacement of defense high . level nuclear wastes in a<br />
2<br />
RECEIVE'; DOE-RL<br />
' euL 18 1988<br />
dO7P<br />
VqM<br />
geologic repository. The DoE has apparently violated the National<br />
s<br />
Policy Act (NEPA) both d to discuss these<br />
osignificant<br />
fg a secn issues and through deciding [o to<br />
drop<br />
the construction<br />
of a second mined geologic repository.<br />
NEPA requite. th e ion of an Environmental Impact<br />
p<br />
Statement pt10[ to ANY decision op t y lead CO adverse 2.3. 12 .<br />
environmental f which limit. the chof tea on such a<br />
decision.<br />
sion.. NEPA further<br />
ra quf res d tike of all relevantn<br />
environmental<br />
th information by the decision in maker when a decision<br />
with advverse adverse impacts or which limits future cb ices f ads. de. That<br />
a<br />
is a a<br />
exactly thenature off the decision made b y the Secretary of<br />
Energy in announcing h that there will be no second repast [o[ In<br />
8o doing, he has made the Defense Waste HIS a sham. He has<br />
.sad the option of a<br />
leaking<br />
clean up of the wastes in oi<br />
them. In shell high level<br />
nuclear waste tanks and the soil oft<br />
around them. In essence, the Secretary of Energy os decided<br />
these wastes are not gor e siy o<br />
in a because<br />
that 3.3.2.1<br />
there . is not room in one rRe for ȧll the defense fenssee wastes e<br />
as<br />
well as the civilian . wa at ea which moat de into the<br />
he<br />
repository. The Stlatte must Proceed proceed to challenge this f and<br />
demand that it be set aside by the Federal .kart. for failure<br />
consider the considerable environmental t 30 l ha zards of the n place<br />
stab( wast e e o , o shovelling feet of dirt on top of<br />
these Clean Option described in thi s draft <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
Clearly, the Departmentof N<br />
E i roan i scared about<br />
Its Sec having violated the National al<br />
Environmental Policy Act when<br />
the Secretary of Energy male de th<br />
the arbitrary,capricious, blatantly<br />
political p<br />
total Th illegal i to aban d n the second<br />
m a It program. s The rthat of E<br />
2 .<br />
a<br />
1.1<br />
decision not only<br />
made<br />
It crystal and clear that the Dog<br />
intended ate move<br />
de io<br />
bl nd legal issues as the groundwater movement<br />
in th<br />
the basalt locks under <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
stand in the way of Ha made<br />
selection an a high level nuclear waste dump in n he made<br />
perfectly clear that a total clean up of existing g sin sigle shell<br />
..tank wastes at deNE and emplacing t h wastes into a geologic<br />
wa stedry<br />
to oohed NEVER happen - and that t this SIS on the defense<br />
M8te9 in a sham.<br />
The DOE'S Michael Lawrence is now play( point man for<br />
Neared DoE, which been caught blatantly violating th e<br />
NationalEnvironmental co mut<br />
Policy Act. On July he released a<br />
bland new computation of the volume of wastes u and a denial of<br />
legal violation by claiming y is the<br />
23.12 r<br />
e rate of loading of the<br />
repository, not its capacity , that is most important.-This<br />
subterfuge does not arsons i strati ss<br />
Appendix C of the Environmental w tae S<br />
of rend -<br />
DOE document - chows vividly how the $ecretery Secretary [y and Lawrence are<br />
misleading the public and violating NEPA. That document estimates<br />
that there<br />
will u 0 metric tone Of high level aaste.£rom<br />
spent nuclear plant fuel<br />
rods root alone bythe year 2020. The maximum<br />
legal load for a repository 19 0,, metric tons. Lawrence 3.3.5.7<br />
admitahat there is already11,0000 metric tons at <strong>Hanford</strong> in<br />
3<br />
ti 3.3.1.11
€ 78<br />
wool<br />
N<br />
d<br />
3.3.5.7<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 18 19BS<br />
tanks - 10,250 tons alone in the leaking sin Ilft% tht a n DOE<br />
Additionally, there is 6,500 metric tons Curren@@11 ^^cher oE<br />
facilities that must go into a repository. Simple addition makes<br />
clear that the DoE violated HERA by canning the second repository<br />
program and giving the shaft to Texas,Nevada or Washington State<br />
when we were made finalists in the high level waste dump lottery.<br />
Even the DoE should be able to add these numbers which prove<br />
Lawrence's math does not hold . up; even if the DoE made the rather<br />
sensible decision not to produce any more high level nuclear<br />
wastes. Without any new wastes there is not room in even two<br />
repositories for all nuclear power plant fuel rods and DoE high<br />
level wastes - the DoE doesn't intend to put those single shell<br />
tank wastes in a repository despite putting out this <strong>EIS</strong> that<br />
lists this as an alternative. This violates NEPA.<br />
3.3.2. 1 We challenge the decisision to proceed with a<br />
•demonstration" of -in situ disposal" for the tank wastes, for<br />
which the DoE requests funding from Congress in its PY 8 7 budget<br />
for <strong>Hanford</strong>. So too must the State challenge the dismissl a in the<br />
3.1.4. 1 HIS of clean up. and removal of the contaminated soil envelope<br />
surrounding the waste sites.<br />
We wish to comment on the failure of the <strong>EIS</strong> to address the<br />
2.2.<br />
q<br />
11<br />
.lean up of the chemical toxic wastes dumped or stored At<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong>. Any private dumpsite would have to meet the standard.<br />
and timelines of the Resource,COnservat ion and Recovery Act<br />
(RCRA), Superfund (CERCLA) and the Federal Water Pollution<br />
Control Act. This <strong>EIS</strong> not only fails to discuss a total<br />
inventor y ing of dumped toxic wastes or a total clean up, but<br />
fails to discuss even meeting the same clean up standards that<br />
the owner s of any toxic waste dump would have to meet if the<br />
owners were anyone but the U.S.Department of Energy. We fear<br />
that the 'in situ disposal* or in place stabilization" option<br />
that the DOE seems to have already chosen by default for much of<br />
the <strong>Hanford</strong> nuclear wastes also condemns future generations to<br />
2.4.1.1 the exposure and groundwater contamination hazards posed by the<br />
chemical wastes - something that we ae longer let private dumpers<br />
3 .3.2.1 walk away from without cleaning up. The greatest hazard from the<br />
failure to dispose of the chemical wastes is, perhaps, that these<br />
wastes constitute the speediest transport mechanism for moving<br />
the associated radionucleides out of the burial ground and<br />
through the soil to groundwater-<br />
Even bad the Secretary of Energy not precluded the geologic<br />
repository option (illegally), the draft FIS would still wrongly<br />
lack a repositor y alternative for putting all all of the<br />
2.2.11 radioactive wastes -by volume - into ageologic repository.<br />
Instead, the repository option described in the <strong>EIS</strong> proposes only<br />
the majority of the wastes as classed by radioactivity would he<br />
d<br />
1 would remain in the tanks. Given that the geologic barrier system<br />
Is the "best available technology for disposing of wastes, and<br />
bra intent of NEPA is to require full consideration of a wide<br />
3.3.1.1 33. placed in the repository. Much of the wastes - still lethal -<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 181W dn7^<br />
VIM DIVISION<br />
range of alternatives, a true gelologlc disposal alternative<br />
should be fully evaluated.. Dismissing this alternative, solely<br />
on the basis of .cost, should not be a decision made by the<br />
Department of Energy.<br />
An independent Investigation of the efficacy of relying on<br />
the man-made barrier system should be conducted - given its<br />
contradiction of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's reliance On<br />
geologic barriers because no man made barrier can be expectedto 2. 5 . 5<br />
keep wastes out of the environment for tens of thousands<br />
years.The final <strong>EIS</strong> should include full exploration of o£<br />
technologies other than grouting sad the geb-textile barrier,<br />
specifically the proposed technology described in the State of 3<br />
Washington's comments. The technologies described in the draft J<br />
<strong>EIS</strong> are largely untested and, therefore, do not deserve statue as<br />
the only technologies to be considered.<br />
Three recommendations follow on ways to improve the decision<br />
making process for the <strong>EIS</strong>. improving the process is necessarry 2.3.2.8<br />
to ensure that adequate public involvement and public confidence<br />
exist in the decision making process, and that NEPA is not<br />
violated.<br />
Answers to many of the basic questions about the defense<br />
wastes are Still lacking i What are the exact contents of the<br />
individual tanks y ( only the contents o£ the tanks in aggregate<br />
is known ); Now reliable is the technology of grouting in<br />
isolating the wastes t i the <strong>EIS</strong> states that "solvability of<br />
grout is not known IF How will the wastes be monitored, since the<br />
monitoring equipment moat puncture the protective barrier y The<br />
public must have the right to review and comment on the DoE's<br />
plans as answers to these basic questions are found. This is the<br />
last public hearing which the DoE has gauranteed the public. This<br />
I. not acceptable.<br />
3.3.5.4[4<br />
Another HIS is only planned if the data on these unanswered<br />
2.3.2.3<br />
questions exceeds the bounds of what is currently expected. The<br />
intent of NEPA, however, is to compare detailed alternatives.<br />
Thus, It is inappropriate for the DoE not to plan for an<br />
additional public input process.The public is being forced to<br />
operate in the dark without the basic information needed to<br />
evaluate the alternatives.<br />
A formal process of independent review of the fact finding<br />
process on these basic questions is also warranted. The DOE<br />
2.5.5<br />
suffers from alack of credibility with the public due to past<br />
mismanagement of the wastes at Sanford. This credibility was not<br />
improved when , at the defense wastes worshop k in Seattle, a DoE<br />
official told the public that all of the waste at Sanford could<br />
be dumped in the Columbia River/ and no harm to human health or<br />
the environment would ensue. Such an independent review should be<br />
conducted by both the Star and the National Academy of Sciences -<br />
with funding from a DoE • Superfund" style account. The DoE should O • q !1<br />
be required to set aside the clean up funds as soon as possible,<br />
lest they never be appropriated.<br />
/^ p<br />
3.5.4.8<br />
L L J
2<br />
x)'79<br />
080<br />
an'i There( Aye. —'t W/ RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
Sea/e, wq., 987 oy- z.3Z5 JUL 181986<br />
06711<br />
I n<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
V-^ 41l Q ^j^ ^^ IV<br />
2 be%or_ fhafaHy s^'udy inddvin9 fbe 1:p11^-^^<br />
l ^^^^<br />
l<br />
I!4(E S<br />
1 fora3 c of rad/oacFiae weaterial5 'for d \ (<br />
1<br />
I ^ lfv^l,,S'^^^ut(j^<br />
CY)6^<br />
I<br />
Te" of i4oasaAA5 of years should look }o<br />
euth c^^ec{'s ereal'ed, fble (k+nd Q^p^ ^J,,'^, ^-p ^j^ ` 2.2.6<br />
wwn aU h art flat old. KI(As of a.,04m,^UVH.{;1SL^-2^^ ^s l n^l^l c,^^ ©^L^^^ Na k..<br />
A- faskioced at tine llijesf level of ev5}i^^ \_ t ^ 2C^ 1 rLSS w1 [3<br />
C3<br />
techaolc^t^ 7tal+^ worlln^ and lastil^ wia}er•ials,<br />
Q`^r^ ^^ lln'<br />
^ ^^^ ^^ be ^^v^ ^<br />
'have. laafrd $v3 l 0 9 and are in our xwa IG Y( ( V l<br />
,^ ^1<br />
lG^ aVv.<br />
3.3.5.2 ter. fhet{ne ^nMpme +tie Cron+io,, of sly<br />
.and<br />
G`^`^`^t ^/<br />
IA 146H"5 woYLts of Scuip^i.ir e 40 ^ ^<br />
We<br />
!!_<br />
v<br />
d^^S 4 OR<br />
-<br />
afe contain I<br />
am naclear uMtes In<br />
^ a "ram -- a ^C^e0.^ ^(-1'^<br />
W^ ^<br />
1 ^Q<br />
MI6 l<br />
of MW4teMd - Y-6ryabte - cL "<br />
W . ^L -,L^ a ^ n ea<br />
7ora^e. ^e<br />
0<br />
wasl'e<br />
I<br />
l0<br />
3.3.4.2 f 4 civilast{'vn3 W<br />
fu(^ ducan s i q l l@-G^S<br />
^od I( V S.I ,..n<br />
f<br />
_<br />
^^^ f^<br />
slwL^au.-lwlnta of *tit' civilgmfbn ,. Z belive. +<br />
^ t ' L^JIM.<br />
^:. V\AoU)@ CMp,^,l^ Yu<br />
otr ea5fiw^ _nucl6ar tsbulo(o^^<br />
^Y^Uv^D^<br />
i3 in nod of<br />
Q ilM,^ ^G^Q<br />
`RECEIVED<br />
fee eq^!(d<br />
DOE-RL<br />
ance and dlsaPlrKe 'iwwill em-e ^yawi ids ^V 0. ^2Y Y ^^ JUL s 19^<br />
a2 iK#at^gra `aw Ft"e /^' -<br />
1^^ '35 i4, VQ 3^- . WMOroISION oaso<br />
V ^ ^ ^4eC^V` "" I s 3.3.5.1
2<br />
A rim 0 # 5 x<br />
ME<br />
o1<br />
_<br />
Raebb Pat-WMlgacer. WaE^yWY.I.Ipup Yg, 1965 C11<br />
`Our State Is a Dumpsite'<br />
OUR STATE IS A DUMPSITE by Dana Lyons, Copyright 1985<br />
(reprinted with permission)<br />
I lost my job here fishing and opene d . up a store<br />
I buy and sell reactors, Cooling taxers, and lead doors<br />
We've got a brand new indust ry bearing fruit of finer taste<br />
We sell juice to California and get paid to keep the waste<br />
gfo ,f, 62°J<br />
/y z f -1 P! y 5. 41. SP- SO - WCEIVEIU DDERL<br />
YAW/ !f/oq-. 00z./<br />
JUL 18:1986 ppgf<br />
^e^,.[,(i.d•r WM DIVISION<br />
.^,d...e.1 C'A w,<br />
Nuclear Report D' f/"Im ektl Pn' ,bran<br />
man d;:g n^+dfeume Overt 8enmr^<br />
e re wbya—al ffint d ldbe I t<br />
R} 11+:• .,^, t¢ drceJwWWflI P. afFl [s lhi[<br />
tlMademytAk reammended<br />
N.fil Ww,,d le.nld Mtmtli,.<br />
I,,,a<br />
bD<br />
CHORUS,<br />
4- Our state is a dumpsite, Plutonium 239<br />
.1<br />
4-41<br />
N<br />
E<br />
0<br />
U<br />
0<br />
Our state I. a dumpsite, just set it Over that., that's fine<br />
Cur state is a dumpsite, we'll take whatever you send<br />
Our state is a dumpsite, where the hot times never end<br />
We don't just make the power, we also build the bombs<br />
The dollars never atop. from Washington to Washington<br />
The other states all love as cause we rarely take astand<br />
They send us little presents and put money in our .hands<br />
CHORUS<br />
So now I ,. fat and wealthy caves my business here has grown<br />
I sell lamps that don't plug in and heaters for your home<br />
Progress and technology, for us they've were been great<br />
.We're singing here in Washington, the everglowing state.<br />
Our state is a. dumpsite, plutonium 239<br />
Cur state is a dual ' just set It over there . that's fine<br />
Our state is a dumpsite, our fate Se to mutate<br />
We're singing here in Washington, the ever glowing state<br />
repeat<br />
Record and come ette (4 song album on 12" record) availabl e .<br />
by mail. `end check for $6.00 (includes Shippin gg ) tot<br />
Rai,diag Rocorde, P.O. Be. 45451, Seattle, WA, 98145.<br />
Please all ow four weeks for delive ry..<br />
Nuciear Waste;<br />
Don't Bury It,<br />
Recyle It As Fuel<br />
by Marjorie. Marol Hecht<br />
6<<br />
Wlwlweallnudaw•wawe•i,e, As could be -riese • eom We Main<br />
Nally a valuab le resource. More than onelm<br />
%peranlorbe[o-bwlivane Pro' Wring s4 Mass br pearo yeah,<br />
duce) by 'I.n' random an be re- one of At selling Winat for nudear<br />
pence sel to be rcaed as unnlum or parer was m r ioted Was type, be.<br />
OWAtium WWI; only ,boss certnr cute s an clear tar mu wo uld<br />
FA<br />
oa or 37 0111"Aw W reel. Ais dee<br />
berevenakemm.,menmvaIL WO<br />
Nenran'icmenaandesuimNfw, mimlean,<br />
10 IoFf-4ugu[11%, NRlpi<br />
W195"Aa, Nwiom<br />
Nobel tabantory In<br />
dbneE funhe, [led<br />
reem';^^o; 2.5.8<br />
emend Me large<br />
unnedson..•<br />
Tmlae Ayes.<br />
tmmmplemensgations<br />
.1 d6-<br />
An all.<br />
mMletbewade<br />
.rasing number<br />
,Wdnu.s.go4.<br />
WarrNion As<br />
Iddevelonmm.<br />
fedlide a elm,<br />
e r ng<br />
old "Oulu, r.<br />
r au wage w<br />
Teasers,<br />
and by I",<br />
,dadal,Wr<br />
1-1-el waste in<br />
Nucle ar Repeat
081 081<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 18 im<br />
hen, an tur naround rah rep0sho n,by den, rotunda, Coimmwainn or- .' omorkmandodnrtinuM MMON<br />
9fl5. mnilitudi n permitin IM, auto to Department of Fn.W tar geobg;b<br />
FRMabardorntl HroNOOlintenm ha re gene fuel and high barred nun, mniltlentgns. In abortion, them M1u<br />
reposXOrin not betaux of a"hadf- -hegm to three in to fie fi nal rcpglbry been ongu;ng unea rth ran the Boa<br />
nand dilfindues, but under pressure byl".
081<br />
RECEIVED DDE-RL<br />
JULIB1906 01<br />
Coming Up in<br />
FUSION<br />
SEPTEMBER-.<br />
OCTOBER 1986<br />
g<br />
ill note had a MMatlIWry W 35,1.1<br />
megacu n. IOnefelathequaddy<br />
MMIOM"isot o opet eatdefameal<br />
the eame.1. n l enm of Minm, 3.7<br />
x 10`aigmegntioe,possament)<br />
mgetaniaeaolare MNlKWemal<br />
physi cal dimensions M the pmdem<br />
NI Me Slashing! wane fiom U.S.<br />
RECEIVED DDE-RL<br />
JUL.101900<br />
469,<br />
wM ^iIVISION<br />
Heel; and the en ire usemSir le euo<br />
romraNai ds a metal or de ran ge gomabn<br />
barrier. Mel ly, tlrenumNyis<br />
burled In aspeel aedimand .it In<br />
aginksgualforagietinop,vooank<br />
roA, asmnite.aMrelrrorma.n aaary<br />
tlwkl barrier. The UnOea seta W<br />
been mating wasmag gmelog dal for<br />
b-a<br />
N<br />
N<br />
2.5.8<br />
a Pasteur—The Father of<br />
opliral Biophysics<br />
as The National Space<br />
Commission Report:<br />
Ret urn to the<br />
Moon by 1005,<br />
Onto Mars by 1015<br />
• AIDS Reseaiah<br />
Breakthrough<br />
as What the Nuclear<br />
Eap d", Say about<br />
U.S. Reartor Safety<br />
• Fusion breakout-<br />
IatestAdvanres<br />
E<br />
gmokhasm Na ti onal laboratory and<br />
them bas been steady stream of im.<br />
pwernentiinMetttAmlogytomaYe<br />
lbewutem mmuse .<br />
I Thellquiireaddsmiked erithglrss<br />
M4 aria thenpouretl lino. Ii thiar<br />
sbinksc stand—i., mat 11101.<br />
high and If ro l cant In aiameor. The<br />
oresrer is Stated until the gl as s meld<br />
vM there It is ended, wMtla Oen each<br />
elan M t ern wane-1. Al 1, in the boitr<br />
disk glad. T ar needed Is then<br />
piked In anmMa baho,OfamWM<br />
LOOKING FOR<br />
Ja laan's<br />
ground OSK intake older major uelev SCIENCE<br />
Contribution<br />
wale. Hem, cement EIMnsts repdmesl1g<br />
g^BOOKS?<br />
Ante has p+nneena in nuclear Hous storage. At left, firl AM NMnnnon plant at Marcouls, when s1eN<br />
'la bs aefM ra4dmak+re YWed. dry N air[eded wel ts undo<br />
naliom, In. United So. Haw has noeommenial re^KKeniot 01nucher<br />
p lant el Mtims, le'., which mid handle. ghawn eOr eater Od Wdm win spere And hreaM pending rep<br />
To the SDI<br />
eeamelf.baasi. Transcript of a.<br />
Nuafar Ca. W Weld a mmmerei il ro. Ing p lant has dirt! M mNdetans Of willbeWllbytheerdoflMl9A ps.<br />
Tokyo mail nee<br />
prattssing p lant in Oh Ridge, Tenn., highlerel wile f ro m I's reprocoang Inaddilmotoanmmrtrosedlspem<br />
April 22-22<br />
abide sea planned la he larger than at spent fue l, and filth the Mods and fur, IMn is el se a much larger wg<br />
" the, thr ee plants Barnwell ladlllies low norage pooh ume 0 deferral waste f ro m Me Alb<br />
lot spent fuel. Other spent reel Is Sense progr s, n4,0l0 CUBIC triers. QLLOg WRIIf<br />
The Reagan aaminislnnon could<br />
hate resmea the Barnwell plant in area, A the turner plans where it This Ovate is ended! at gwemment fs . - tfuli<br />
aponsmef lap We<br />
1961,<br />
in<br />
but is wash the Child, Weer a genenlea, In wannfillea banm. Aron in <strong>Hanford</strong>, serif., Examine - B E/ILFra"I4M Tusl gasp Iomal<br />
toreador 'reael a e n k t aI Ip .men a a n . sea, Wee in Soule Grolna uld. leap.<br />
and Des<br />
C^ B00if5'B^(¢TS<br />
Beslsl°IUtlGR<br />
aWndan this F IopM p k. IM M . hod to M( Produces. The defense note FU all been repro V<br />
s tronger- sys tem so sunk in the Bytheendoll^,theewasanes vd ttheteauvemmentaper Record Shop<br />
dap no g hoselanoip lckupon mded4,W table mNemohitanl<br />
fuel ales rtpmeesringf dities.<br />
1M about Although the craned lspent ter<br />
spBA FREE, AYAGEi:AafoOUE Available holds<br />
Mse e major Inf rastructure deedW held, atarea at pent III."<br />
ASTgONQQNN 1ANK<br />
501 FEE for 8100<br />
nt p reietu. Reagan al reversed M Cubic mass. general ly .alrec4 Is only ghoul t Itudge of On Moore<br />
6 YAQ<br />
so replies pdItq of prodding hdenl la edeachyxan of detenae wane, It has a higher b url ^^<br />
.lur br n ilhin cascara spent heel, Tire is rro probem in mn6noing aI ra6wAriry Ally heat output he-<br />
al Oau<br />
e'<br />
r lhedehnsearomisdlluldl Tree ^d-Z4<br />
Rlaie<br />
and agam made this the nsimesibiliel t osrospemfuelinth re<br />
er apolsfar30<br />
Telephone order:<br />
ewealiz;—^<br />
onami g ual drillle'. in 3S ears, but xcoMMg Design. Depamentof Hergy estimalel1 met<br />
NpwWaF Wallet —1 of EMrp magnen, tM to<br />
(7021771-7100<br />
lnlenm defense wane has a Moadivity of<br />
V Bout4 Ring SUae1<br />
The ek,weal VSlky ndened, sludge roam efilWk at p lant silo I.lN meg gcvrkL"an me mamma-<br />
LessW, OA M75<br />
(708) EE7d601<br />
NWm gaPead atlflpN Iuly'sainet nese tJ<br />
H Iuy.Angun !Este<br />
rUfIDN<br />
WII pill be a v@ktlarynange me<br />
than. Ac cording to Use assumption!<br />
At WherioAgenq,aucbglnsisan eJ a G a<br />
Nable Mat even If placed In Cowing L J<br />
wakL 9t would eke Me Me<br />
to d6saHe away about 1 .11Ii., of<br />
the fork ed¢ nagehaglas..<br />
There bare also lrnn kavarNam<br />
the preparation and tnnsponationof<br />
feel. Far eampk, Me mks br mama<br />
porting wok an p robably Me had<br />
made.<br />
designed mnkiden ever m They<br />
bed I:m ou ) films ma do by Hre<br />
Sandia N tronal labonmrin shmNng<br />
Fu&s N,o wok os4 eollidog fun<br />
'peed with a horsil y or crashing<br />
'no a wddaen stmeon. In all afnw<br />
do tic mad. she Oak emegea mar,
s<br />
083<br />
hn ANmm TmiwYmmWge4w lT o lk G. a FW U&Hqr d Pxpeg mu Vm<br />
Keri McRUgr To p1.%rrl d 8.e.p r llnratl. W..pmgtm<br />
tP.elsr Wmla<br />
Nimr(Wr^rh memmir b+umPO®ovhlu4 mE monoPoVbnemimumme<br />
aewmednvWni. ThsEL9 pmr4.mgYmduamplime.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
P) mcbPMOmmlmmdwlgilmwm.iw.xols<br />
JUL IS 1986<br />
(et Ihee.nPmWmdommwaaudmmimalemme<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
p) multi mb.ybm.ebnowe.ampmei.tieorm.<br />
bMaamm.^tlamm^n_m,^ma ,b:ibgb,W^M y<br />
3.3.4.1 e,mcww. we®aao.ugo-ve me IW by bpwAd,omuRebmwitlyemw.11m merma, m.<br />
[gmmlrvM mwr& .hu vaga e.WblletlbY tlb aimti0e eo®v"uY. Av imnna.naga: .^<br />
nnemmYanaM mo.gofra md.emourmd btlq •. moRE.dmti.b i beig doami bw.r&<br />
Me haelWmw . d.s.mm. lq w.nm.kiq meloobeei ShmJtlM rwm. ^. made mntivmu.)<br />
WgAM bmDYO bwW..'HW.IIII •1b.MtNgg1V!'ptQ]m110WIY]q MYW MngmYgl®fG.tMi<br />
'dnimtlPo ge.i.mtl(mu bwah P.eb^mu.abrds tlipreldemiY wmbt NeYr.oq yam<br />
C<br />
2.5.6 r.lY>u i nq tlb .vt d eonpeiN. iu .^ r i.tagh a .ba. IYPa d F.imnu ae<br />
pweepneG V W ibeiM Mw.po of vm dmanm,mflm mJ dbvw.ut 1 webs. mE a mob<br />
feel sJm ami po'ati P..m.mgwN W mue imygvo4mm. bgi,me ImtlnmW Mnot WrcM<br />
hseutlWlwvbmmWlymtlweegY. .. _ - - .. - -. . ...<br />
^
4 7<br />
mm<br />
2.2..3 `7<br />
„ u,/z', 3 o.,^. ^F r£..a /....:.e...6„-s. CJe -..^.ez-'^<br />
-^- ^oP•JJrr6- e^ ^ cTU:,;^ mss` ^'..^4- ,.-..-c s^„f>..rL,<br />
2. 2.1 ®Ti^ '`^ ^^f ee ee.-. GY ....^,+-Y-,s:e.c_.e ,gym' ^4°<br />
' yifa0 L3-/N! f^LCC. 2Ri4. d ^G quvr-•/." / 3 Hh+.-I<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
AL 18 9B6<br />
Conscience<br />
wMDIVISION aes4 „u<br />
un*^ a»,wu =vx r..za ai nne:os ^ ^za^sna»x<br />
%J<br />
Jvcy /r / /In<br />
T r)+E `7J0 L<br />
df e 3 FLOfML ^JJCtf 44. (/J ISK ^frUh Nny 4r<br />
•.<br />
Uxv "` ;I MY N Is 'Rtde A/LO {HOOP . / A. 70 ,L CO . O,LU/NAroa. Of<br />
.n AftE<br />
I//L l-ONSCGLNLC F TK•>< C A'(f •iJ / N/rK AYsa<br />
N<br />
w<br />
6E sptlft' Al 71o47 * n /fN419 AA L/u /R /y/y Fp,f,<br />
7NK gs fff.£ kde v,ocfV 4 c"4a f,, Of. Z, t 4w A+VD<br />
/D O7Wf A. yVS +t^ &ftu Or F EE MS E /bo/^r 6E(/W/JE<br />
IYIY AWL (Nyn LV[A r/U . A 7a-OTLST 17A"Sf- I*C<br />
U/a/LSN< E - AiA,. sr 0,K£V /u 71K<br />
7 1 C 560M.) J atA<br />
/<br />
Tfft 1/RSMV/LAnO-5 wttle1 ^ *w 2^A.fSf uA ,37 7VPA7,<br />
2 .5.6<br />
h*Aj /CAGE /Wt, WrE "IOAcn 3£: eF TMf<br />
E.Uulao,vm /r A7' //AM/4A ,D A^v /Ecf£wNFAE /.v wr (JS.<br />
.RECEIVED DOE-RL.<br />
JUL 18 986 6DO<br />
WMDIVISION.<br />
PJE tp 3OCAT£ SntON7 .r- o%A,, £vr hemw ON, r.r£ ?"r<br />
OY /}.n£a!/a^ CIr-,-Sws 7r+ BR•/uf fv ErO m Mrx/ucr.E<br />
A•t- N •SN .srNA^-[ WNtcH Fc,9pZ 5 us A+VO rs<br />
e
084 081<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
RECEIVED . DOE-Rl<br />
+U^ [ d X86<br />
Conscience Conscience 600<br />
WM ! V k O BOSS, WMDIVISION ^^.<br />
+vanom. w.rx e.szw so... vnsaim cznc nssan i,,, r e.nw x,w w.saim<br />
aos^saronx<br />
^^<br />
WM OI ISI R'"^ 5O' 09sz (`/"<br />
r<br />
N<br />
A<br />
/r I$ CLEAIL 7 0 &)s 7hW Sr)4/Nf AStta/rfT<br />
^`<br />
NrceE 7E AS D7!♦E[ j erv5 > /NY/Y rDWies ffAUL PIrUTED D.+r<br />
Q"t .4)-<br />
//a AD / W/FE2E /l eWF-V 4 L RC)PLOCLrfED<br />
l'OA DSt IN 774S oDoenaN ^A ArLLE9A 2. 1.3. ^<br />
Wt9^N5 . IS<br />
A deN 3 wrtNr motet Fo.L r*l- 'A.O.F. Sor stela .t<br />
C//(//EI /S VN eON I
1 u<br />
f¢^$y<br />
Y$<br />
q{ 3a<br />
$ E 4 ^^ 4? Yq ^ia'e<br />
4<br />
084 085<br />
RECOVED'DOE-RI.<br />
COnsdence eUL 18 986 fl6S ry}<br />
*c assosu =r n.a.rsa s•W RON.gv 02 /FGCrD l.v7lpi,.<br />
h"L^L1 C 4.JGS.<br />
w. &omor 7Tft 5 /kf}nlw)t: Daoe4sf 145 Ia GIL<br />
2.3.2.8 4"" * 1 `44+ E<br />
4L) Q<br />
p"mbT yv uJ AJ.ao.£3}"L /ND 3 f M^,<br />
Y 00 .Ir £O£A+'}G R-L^Ie Se Ta7 a 7--- Are rvrt{ Cf}4.Le/a0YG5<br />
MD 'V 3V.C4A /NeIYLNi"3. WL W(.4L /LESITr ru fN<br />
-On.esn- " SVAV.f L.<br />
,/2 lt 4 wij<br />
/Yf0 2Y M 07-•K.. F<br />
9£A., t-4 fRfl7.<br />
zec- ;sr, ass?<br />
CURRENT EVENTS<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
41.1 806 0<br />
,.^.. rninclON<br />
T.^1<br />
. WIII/1'<br />
it<br />
"Uiterl)• convening. II grills the reader like an<br />
1nmllec 1ual thriller. building inesarabh to a<br />
haunting conclusion.'"—Ihrshingtmi Pnn<br />
"no fur the U.S. to I ae nergr<br />
con onv m arc obvious and serious The haul:<br />
should be idely read and ducueseJ Lihrurr<br />
Journal<br />
"One wanders not whether it happened but Ron<br />
and xh,' nmvs of th, accident x'ns kept Sec re t for<br />
so long.'—The It oll Sven Juu•ruf<br />
"CAI ronvincine pictu re afscrious canlam inmion<br />
over a lane area .m the eamen. Si.." Lr the<br />
southern dusury eretheoeigmal Snviet milirar)<br />
nuclear indusW was situated.=A'anne<br />
I<br />
i<br />
' i s na r'Je-5=::f^ ^^as<br />
C7<br />
JIM<br />
Lei<br />
s<br />
or,<br />
i<br />
^s<br />
o"Q
I I - w mlM1n k11M ry ml nk a!'<br />
P1 i^t {_<br />
Other nuclear accidents<br />
He Inl e/ ma lrc XIOT c I Olaol<br />
nceMlenl ^z0 m a In.. uri leE<br />
HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
PUBLIC HEARING<br />
AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
- dUL 181986<br />
1. How tlld you learn of the hearings? -<br />
µm7 IVIS<br />
News p aper _ Radio _ TV Mail _ Rt ror<br />
IOk N<br />
Word of mouth .):._ Other (Please specify)<br />
2. Did You attend one of the <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Open Houses in<br />
Februar y or March? Yes _ Nom<br />
ODQS<br />
3.4.3.1<br />
3, Did you attend one of the <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Informational<br />
Workshops in Ma y or June? Yes b No<br />
4, Did you have access to a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact<br />
Statement or the Summary? Yes No<br />
I—+<br />
N<br />
m<br />
5. Please rate each of the following;<br />
. Very Goole Good Fair Poor<br />
Hearin g s. moderator [<br />
Procedures for recordin g comments<br />
. , Ph ysical' arrangements.<br />
Process for requestin g to comment<br />
Five minute comment period<br />
6, Please share an y additional comments you may have about these hearings.<br />
4,v'el<br />
n^elmr .[comb never<br />
^ I ^^ a m me sovin<br />
9lovnrcr<br />
IIM Sn kl ec<br />
/I IV_ly^ am xE IF rc i<br />
1, Any additional comments about the process of submitting written<br />
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact .Statement?:<br />
3.4.3.1<br />
nitl n Inrpe<br />
^ryvTM1ni ]CSlry ry^<br />
lin,i's In erc ypy off<br />
ail ^q:.:%'f^N^^r 11V<br />
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS HEARING AND TAKING THE TIME TO FILL OUT<br />
THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.
CIE<br />
M 086<br />
S^nr . Le ^<br />
/ ^ `r'dtl2<br />
HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
PUBLIC HEARING<br />
AUDIENCE _QUESTIONNAIRE<br />
RECEIVED DOE- RI. , .<br />
JUL IS iM CV?('<br />
W Hoe did you learn.of the hearings?<br />
Newspaper 3 . Radio 3 TV — Mall — VVIARN15HA<br />
We rd of mouth L^ .Other (please specify)<br />
2. Did you attend one of the <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Open Houses in<br />
Februar y or March? Yes No I— II 1<br />
i^I<br />
RECEIVED DOF.RL<br />
JUL 1 8 1986 Jd8(°<br />
V3 IV DIVISION.<br />
F-VJ SsL fs(^IN^ss ...<br />
EVeN 1f• oinsrc sacs c l Lz=ss q'eu,,we ^^eGy T41''=a DI k<br />
F\<br />
A`WY U=ts-r_' BcrC- Th y wuy A2EN^7-<br />
.^0.(^<br />
I -Twwr- NucLEne wTTaPous rIR.G > valJ VmR lIZRs-<br />
$PC"`Sl6Le `S^LT`I s+l 4UJ ( M5Aa `m4ti "JeNGy.<br />
hlb (AJW wlu Ate.. ^^roe2 ^Czaan -Ti+wsa- J'm p L.y TWa "T<br />
?v^ sxaar- s16wT-D Da A Iaa s. We Ape: ou ALLo ,<br />
2.5.6<br />
N<br />
NV<br />
3. Did You attend one of the <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Informational'<br />
Workshops In May or June? Yeq — L No S LLKE -<br />
R{^ts
---- - -- !<br />
^G^<br />
^ -- 2Z^S65 tiro ^ r =^ -----<br />
_s,-.^ -^ 3 7^^T -- «^.iTi "^o ssl f7'^1 S4Fr' r, t ^;<br />
--------------<br />
/<br />
^.<br />
jd y ak ^'V3'. N'r^.J^^z.-<br />
jr^-^£Jy z.i-l,-'•---'-yr-^ tTa -?,J /2r.3z LrLi__<br />
- ---:--^`---- -- ---------- C7hz: d<br />
-------- --- --------------------<br />
--- -------------_____^._.__.<br />
^=^J- w 7bPs-^^ -sryylr` -3 e£^ i `<br />
3Q' TL ikLL°-£?t!----E fY'I''k^6i-n(dIII<br />
,0<br />
co<br />
N<br />
.-a<br />
f/ Ili. JVV<br />
q^YN 11,^o -^Im<br />
31MU 3NONd 393F1OQM 3^1tlNO^ 3NAN<br />
33I^ 3NCHd 583tlIIC6 3M 1 NEJI^ 3FItlN<br />
aae rosy of Patlolaaap A rfnl uaaO l&A<br />
• aua.uouaua aVi eo,i (eigl+a 6111<br />
iov se4 A6a(ou4aa} .1.11da,dde l.,,<br />
£ r G raaA a w s •a 'Fi —14 ae -assn ,canna ao. se..oaa 4 .....I.d . I.Ps iuoo nl<br />
a ou 1 3111 aAb.au3 10 avaya+dab ra.apa) .V} a6an paub,S..... aya aN<br />
uo36uF4ssN u .aasbya... us u.Y'Ad saM .......<br />
p.oAMeH aa yl la pa i .l o; Apauf. 3 • asses .g fln. Ao f.s odlfp Pue abe.ais<br />
o f OFSVOdsa ♦ W aaooapa 4 1an 4a.oN aS3 Ped a4 4 Ao sluap !sa. aVa aN<br />
^ a^ NOISIAIO WM<br />
q - , alt'.( C809<br />
ANOYI1931 3itUM 35N3J30 1MOlNtl<br />
8 i lNp<br />
•,le," off 1H-30a f 3Amctm<br />
',fa+ayo+Faaa +Va .o aY Pdojdde s}ya<br />
a3 e tosF oa padorana O A ffnt u++4 }sR }o. s+y Rb... .... aa+iadd,dde . o.. y s r C<br />
t++A ...s A6 .... s f 43 }+ +is.M o+Pnu 1P a6.aoas iusu uu d . +pf avda f Y G G<br />
l o u ( 3661<br />
+ w u3 l 0 3Vae)aYda1 (s.apsy +V} +bm p+ub F/a+pun ryl aN<br />
• 4o36. yq..N vaa4 b8"..s uF ..F...... M a+a PnN<br />
P.oAu+M aVl a. P a a. ^o f Ap.u(e acs+ ..alanV {o f+sodsFP Fui +b+.o}+<br />
+ f p F b.. .. ..... FSU a43 +N<br />
NOISIAIO ViM<br />
AN^LII1831 a5bR 3873za pMOdN,q isco go 9 i 111f<br />
IN-300 03A13038<br />
490<br />
4so<br />
$ Z @`' _1 E
1' _ k e .. §} ate¢ ,^<br />
Ell<br />
N.=CEIVED DDE-RL -<br />
JUL 18<br />
0 . Dom' HNNFPR QEFENSE WASTE TEDTIMDNY<br />
µR1 DIVISION'<br />
Me the residents of the Pacific Northwest advocate the responsible<br />
star.,. and dispos al of nuclear waste alread y .. located at the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
M.cl..r R ... 11.ti.o 1. South6bstern Amahington.<br />
He theundersi gned urge the Feder al Department of Energ y (DOE) not<br />
4 td c Sider Pertinent .tore,. of 0...... ... to at this ties..' we feel<br />
33.5. .<br />
tnat th appropriate tecnnology has non yet nee. fully developed to isolate<br />
is ma terial from the en viloh.m.t.<br />
/^.<br />
DOE-RL<br />
,UL 18 WIS 00gj HHNFORD DEFENSE MRSTE LESTINOtjY<br />
µT1 DIVISION<br />
NO the residents of the pacific Northwest advocate the responsible<br />
storage and disposal of nuclear Nast# already located at the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Nuclear Rr... vatic. in S.uthOmstern Muhington,<br />
M. the undersigned urge the Federal Depart ... t of E. gy (DOE) net<br />
to eon.ld.r pa ...... t me ..... ' .f nuclear ... tr at this Yiaer .. we fame 3.3.5.4<br />
that appr opt let. technology has not yet been fully developed to i.ol.te<br />
this material itch the envaonaeee.<br />
NAME SIGNATI ADDRE59 PHONE DATE<br />
SJ_^ _ ^---r!"" -'d- --------- 11Y^'ac L/ st` va-------- r_?_^YS__Z__!-sue'<br />
STJ 3_/'^_^3A.cl OL 4t v -^'<br />
--------------------<br />
OLy _w- __------ "L{=^^<br />
_ALu 31.hCn:r
p 5<br />
YM,<br />
l^irJ •<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 181986 0:,B9<br />
•oa I WMDIVISION<br />
8"P71r, lTtG -<br />
Aia44Ma<br />
ealtnfaetlwwm aw.<br />
w+^ :^ REC:;:cp DOE-RL<br />
J8L18I988 odg9<br />
VIMDMSION<br />
N<br />
iA O<br />
82AllfKRW FOR DA 20 MMMNG<br />
Joly 15, 1986<br />
1 raaoce with at aomuetry Sta[e«vt on Disarmament,`<br />
and in<br />
c<br />
on ce<br />
rn for the health and eeviroumut of the Nortbeesq<br />
end thevoold copwity, -<br />
ne Sisters of S t. Joseph of Peace urge that: -<br />
2. 5.6 i. The S-Reactor he shut do we itmeafately;<br />
2 .2.1<br />
E. The Plecooiver-uranium Extraction process and all<br />
production of weapons grade pluessi m cro wn;<br />
3. There uob be a ucle astecowpository at <strong>Hanford</strong>; and<br />
4. The special isotope facility be elimipated..<br />
2.2.13 pfually, we saw it as ea st important that there be an independent<br />
¢eradication of all <strong>Hanford</strong> OPezatiauc.<br />
awJrn wr..r- - --WAA d7... yr.,. 7Ae.e :. —4, 1 r wta.alfi, ;- f4ri r^<br />
,71 e. L,r;.l ..! ^.a,yy. at,a d' -,,- ..,.,.y,r u x a PP,.e,a ne l`"'""'<br />
W, Ga,I&3 a..J P&...-,...r ,f s..,6 ...aTaw:L , y. a.^ ee3 d^ pa35:......,.^, -<br />
w;l &e , 7e .Vp Ra Pwaf -t' .j<br />
71,.,, --U r73<br />
1, n..G:(Et a..npd 6 As<br />
^Y!r'a!n p.el. a Aiuua...a,. ;exPG'r.-/t ^era.JaGl.w a La.e: %W d'A .4t<br />
J Jdc —&w.4 g mt cmdih^wa. +^.m..% wuAa^.<br />
+,ynr, a..^..y k a.^aA : ma.P L..e ,,,,,:ae 'm^ ,.s.,.A n ^°"'" f<br />
x .e..tG a_<br />
yw 3 ?P?u .•an ,.fm G 1ru wA al^.w6 rlu,<br />
iw,,, sou it< u,.ddY j.w,.J ipx;. t.at ..: its. ruYAYt.e<br />
N/e a.e Aid 71-r ftr6-aGu s.-d NP.+L ,.-h &-.-V a..w„y 1(..-.ta.. a, A_<br />
.awdt.(A^ ",f— Nt Ga..e A4e„f A:, Lane, ;. p71w. pus. a-.1...: wit., r.. r4A. i<br />
Wt.T w d^^ ...f^,a., o7tw - -%. h w ..-d 16+-+n ...«.+.«w .< -P-, _i.,<br />
Lawn :....tW.. feeo:.., a,4 .aY^ d7Aa.a, ..e7.ati.^ 'o.»Av. Pe R.... ", /3^dl^dd ^:<br />
Janie S. Rafcblis CS;P<br />
Director,<br />
Office of Justice and peace<br />
-Sisters of St. Joseph Of peace<br />
The s h tem of se l pb ei Peare SI lemmt D t<br />
me<br />
W., he Ce a (II a St Jonah 1 P hl I 1 c mu"Y. wbhaY deel.ee w. reel<br />
1 e She les hoo ad deft Y N 11. u M i NR ; nal: Y .f m.n dn4selbv.<br />
W art 1 tN • (1 ( d b bt le 14 ra t week .1 w6w.t4y wi neNes .ad Mben<br />
I 1. .. ;amnnll" N . verih.ed (nhfen[n, N wdne -a ad . wasa dnlnrtles .ew.<br />
f+,a.7 7l-te weua. A"'.A . a7 d--<br />
Y 72;e .. e-dl i,—, .:.d.w 3ef ar p,.aulNfs.,gtr......<br />
Jc n,l, La. ,,,_ 12. L-4l ad WP/,SS 4,— —a ayP mX, a-d ne,; a.ean..a-wo.<br />
7th Gd 4. !„assn aA,; 7' a a f^ 2.5.6<br />
"`^`.^J'^f ^M .pA fi n.. ^.r.e t.,^. n.td ^, !/n4,d, at7a7+w ap.w^<br />
v z L aWad— 1 a^P°^ rr^^ —Ma r.;e P"°y ,n ^^ 3.3.5.2<br />
'....<br />
I<br />
3i, MAFY P#MNGNAIE 1853 gWP U WAY. PA WX 248, DE 1. WASHINGTON 9gW3O24e 206 454'S
M<br />
1 t<br />
2.3.1.14<br />
3 .3.1.1<br />
2.1.9<br />
Mary V.-It lin And.'.-<br />
6844 30th Avenue N.E.<br />
6eattlq WA 9B115<br />
July I5. 1986<br />
Testimony on Nuclear Defense Waste<br />
RECEIVED DDE-RL<br />
JUL 18 1986 x4i<br />
V/M DIVISION<br />
TM1e forty year old accumulation of noel ur waste at <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
presents a n wooly difficult problem far which a eft<br />
t echnalap 1 offer. no completely effective solution. urHowever,<br />
this defense waste is cjust a mall part of the total nuclear<br />
rite problem and cannot be considered separately. All<br />
radfo.etive ..at.. are alike in their oang.roua potential,<br />
whether their origin is weapon production or power plant<br />
generation.<br />
The Department of Energy's mistaken idea that we rid<br />
ea lees of any of this deadly waste by burying it i<br />
underground vaults is a carefully perpetrated myth. In fact,<br />
burying the deadly garb.,. 1s really goat a form of storage,<br />
the only open option at this time. Whether the material i<br />
defense .mate or power plant waste, it will still be the,. far<br />
the next 10,000 to 240,000 year .. .... ibly a ..Limp it. revs, ing<br />
influence in ways that our most brilliant scientists have not<br />
yet imagined.<br />
Considering the violent geological history of this planet<br />
and the lxk ensiva longevity of radioactive material, the plan to<br />
bury nuclear wastes in underground repositories is 'absolutely<br />
3.3.1.1 mniac. a 1. Even the moot carefully studied gaologi pa! site c n<br />
ever provide the required; l0{000 years of guaranteed*<br />
predictable s purity against major geological upheaval.<br />
generation of deadly wat.. which will affect our planet<br />
i<br />
The <strong>Hanford</strong> site I. an entially forever -new w - having o difficulty<br />
especially poor choice for<br />
m<br />
underground repository. Studies of the possible interaction<br />
2.1.1 between some very hot waste and the basalt rock formation yield<br />
vidence ofpoaslble calamitous problems. Future earthquake s .<br />
could easily shattmr rock formations surrounding unding an underground<br />
repository and could open up now channels for. groundwater under<br />
pressures of as much as 1,00 0 . pound- per square inch. This<br />
pressurized water Could begin ax,vin, through the waste vaults<br />
and t .... d the .urface. According to U.S. Geological<br />
Association Hydrologist 8111 Meyer, a yen without the<br />
precipitating influence of an arthquake the p .... uris.d flow<br />
of water in underground aquifer o may be pervasive or three<br />
dimen... h.l. that f oving t ... Id the ..'face a well a<br />
horizontally. Considering the potential of pressurizedat—,<br />
the <strong>Hanford</strong> site . % proximity to the Columbia River Would further<br />
emeeprbate an already catastrophic situation, possibly creating<br />
a widespread nuclear wasteland in the Northwest.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 181988, &Oqo<br />
VIM DIVISION<br />
Becauo the Nevada and Texas sites or ... M' different but<br />
equally serious problems, some type of aboveground monitored<br />
retrievable storage syat.m t s to be a viable and safer<br />
farm of storage than burial in mdeep underground repositories.<br />
containment<br />
Storing the wastes abovegr.und in specifically designed<br />
fac111ti.. woultl enable m hita,ih, and control. that<br />
would be impossible if the waste w oremoved from human control<br />
by deep burial In rock formation.. eYA e lso. Monitored Retrievable<br />
Stol.0...old be less ..penatve,. construction would be easier<br />
construction antl woultl not Fequlre ..cliff.. of human lives • undergrountl<br />
probably ..old, 1 1 could off., greater safety, and<br />
it could be located anywhere, not Just in politically convenient<br />
places such as Washington state.<br />
The most important tl ante,. of this Plan. however,. is that<br />
it .,form time to evaluate thoroughly the concept of underground<br />
burial or even to develop new solutions:. TM1e Department of<br />
Energy should then no longerfeel ...1.1l.d to declare <strong>Hanford</strong>,<br />
Nevada, or Texas suitable sites for repa.ltori.a when the..<br />
sites have not even been adequately studied. I strongly object<br />
to this precipitous action which shows callous disregard for the<br />
safety and .ell-being of Washington Otat. clk ;sane.<br />
Although this monitored retrievable storage systam offers a<br />
nably •an. disp ... I method, the really critical issue<br />
amain- a ue threat to our entire planet. the continued<br />
3.3.4.2<br />
proliferation zofnuclear Weapons and power plants when there is<br />
2.5.6<br />
eatly no truly effective way to Fltl a or planet of the tleatlly<br />
rites. The very future of our vulnerable planet depends upon<br />
the r solution of thisissue. We continue to .proliferate the<br />
storing the ..at. of just the past forty year.. What about the<br />
next forty years? What about the next century? 'Does our<br />
Manifest Deatlny" includ. the construction of Monitored<br />
retrievable star.,. facilities from "tea to'ihini., sea". a sea<br />
poe.Ibly shining due to radioactive ]um ineacencaP 01 a e to<br />
convert our entire planet into. gigantic nuclear oe .story,<br />
burying our hum.. .... along kith the daftlU ptl vewaakes<br />
saw ... led uby Par failure to ... th at . on?<br />
Currently there a ultimately. satisfying an<br />
s to<br />
the.. q ... ti.... - Untile arompletely n<br />
affective ma a found<br />
to rid our planet of atomic waste, our pursuit ofenergy from<br />
the atom ui entirely i Even apart from the possibility of<br />
literally burying ourselves in nuclear waste or destroying<br />
ourselves by nuclear war, it I. probably just a matter of tim.<br />
until we experien ce at least^ons American "Chernobyl Syndrome--<br />
2.5.6
65a9 -5w - EBS<br />
(F.4 a 3a qo9 'ax )<br />
Z'S°£'£<br />
Z'b'E'E<br />
SP.Aau a c,AT -- aavd. u4 .9uoieq Peada4p .}sax iFaPUN<br />
:eaydao}alHVs<br />
and Fq pa}oa }off FpeaxT. e[ V1sa"1 . eyA 4at4n mou puµ wioc a4A Fq<br />
m.A..S .. mo ;o Ano Idena a4 it Tx .Masi Uo4Aaryex Fw m}n; ay}<br />
oiuT eiT4o ;o cpu .c A io; Pam}SUOm SSe, . eq uana .. }t •aiwF<br />
..TM- q xd; uaaq soW ul A..,d Pue swap e Td A w Woo w aQ<br />
tivP VT... -- 4Aia,A v4} wdu .T[S4vnoP. '- vei}ad, oS PA TT<br />
4gad w Woo<br />
• aAevx.,du xo; vavtd.Pm}ev<br />
Ftiva.oxTnw w ..}T 'afvaq uvonV m3 v;ac vQ 0A -TAe[Pax Tl—gq P<br />
HuTPNO4 4ana od} svy A'.a wo,s. xeioe a4} bo Aiad aNS -oo, .VA<br />
pw anuap wax}aq}Sgio av[oa a ui aeexd}a pw tlA AxddewxA m; (ndu<br />
3V8N a4QSsw; FRea4UyavA) 1dvmadvde FwiavetdxaAU4 paAaadOateA o}<br />
A4 wdewi} Pw AS4u0 4AxBi not o} e}aen ey} AxodewxA 'E<br />
ea.ia oA w v des.. pw • AVepu,gf • a;as •aigaSTex<br />
anal 1-T ex c..A -0 vry}N }eyA d mv. ..a.,avvW adadaaxay PuotAmN<br />
aA 4 ai g4ssdd . w od... ds }w®Tda4 dy FTAw9iTTP eyxon •z<br />
PnaSx}ai pw eutxu14udv Pvno.9 anogv io; s..."U.<br />
uS }; Psa pw aiaix eq4 F;SawTB '9uTaq e.[A eql xd; 'T<br />
,axoii o 3 w aS vdTAntoe aW4+we FNa eyy<br />
N<br />
M N<br />
a To. id; .nay ax amVdeoiQ ayA -- Aauetd ary} vo aayx.fw aia.x<br />
.To. 3o a9axo}a AvavvaAd iapivuoo tlA ewvvT Fie}nioge e4 }I<br />
vVdaom}s vql oiuT Kav4<br />
eaoumTon gft.,A pw • Aena c yAagp ay} wpw wVA •w}}oq uaeod eyA dA<br />
FtPn}wn.. ai.mrye pw uoTw a s.n 49n0x4}. xPe a 41 mot[ etwtlw ;o<br />
epwa(wVA woo pataFdax vie smoAe UaQxw venq •}veatd ." .. wie<br />
Ana Fw FS}vawmaed aieias4 oA aSgT..o dd, aT AT • cAValw 9.19usya<br />
Fq PA av;;a FS}4.iavdd puv paAaawoa-m}vT aS Suew4xSnue i dt9<br />
uT w.-T. Hans }v4A v.Tpo}. PAww e i4aw mdx[ mdvy aA<br />
926T 'ET 41Pr<br />
MCIA 80 11 .9uy. . Atl<br />
T" mdg '0 'd<br />
NOISIAIO WM<br />
I—IM 1 x —a<br />
/bw qN S S lnn<br />
zSE66 adAeama.n - p Tl;T8<br />
BSS -d 'o 'd<br />
l8-304 6!3A1303i1 m aJ<br />
Tim .di + .a S-a<br />
anv-lim 'Y'FI -><br />
ill'.. .444 1. uageavup<br />
a44 do;* Pue •u0ipea-N .4 4 de}+ •+Auatl +.nod +a+tmnu ;e<br />
uPFian.yaueo ryi doi. • uod..n +..tuna 40 u0 x ld.a4 TIOUd 044 dogg<br />
i.... g,,.. +Id.F. a t P.a—Id.. .aq u' p udll— ;0 a m 0 .u..<br />
Fiue .41 '.J s ^Aaen .nF Ae.OFP.0 1. 4 4. F AFt.su a 4 4 Buiaq<br />
Fq „du Thu F4A le a.p0w„ 4.04A .duels an 4.44 awFA. aF AS<br />
• .4dadlsw;wO tlatalt . ldun P, ... A Al F+P soli<br />
n Pu. • tlu pyu F4A ;e sapow ., no aAws Bu F4AFU.na 000 uel0 s.4 wo Aa<br />
•. 4 1 fe d nad P.4 ... I.. . g liF p i•+s.adaa uF.A.0 F3 A iag tu °tl<br />
n BuFLiq.yuoa aF -.4, .4% Iwe A. . a 4 4 BuFiiediu0a Aou a ...<br />
.. Ajquaa.ud a.n.0aq .4 n ,. un0 uF aq F.. F4 1 IT q Ysed %T41u•<br />
uo F+uan<br />
u.nmtl a4 4 u.4 4 +Aa.ye tluFiswW.p aiow wn. stls41.0 4 41 n<br />
NOISWOWM<br />
L<strong>EIS</strong><br />
Y<br />
r^c<br />
+raj ` .:e<br />
C^jy-
t^<br />
092 093<br />
Olympia, July 14.<br />
19<br />
Wa. R"C'(VLO DOE-RL<br />
July 14, 86 Department of Energy<br />
JUL 18 IM<br />
dagy<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
Dear Sirst<br />
If these protective barriers you mention are such good solutions<br />
to caring for the nuclear waste, then use th is method to dispose<br />
of the wastes in each state that Produces them.<br />
RECEIVED DOE -RL Dberl.tt. La unstop<br />
JUL 18 1986<br />
Seattle,<br />
S9BW6.<br />
60q,6 ^OQ<br />
WM DIVISION duly L„ 1986<br />
W<br />
Transporting wastes thousands of mile. across the country does<br />
seem a very dangerous procedure. What are the safeguards?.<br />
No more SNEAK attempts to route wastes through the state of<br />
3.4, 2 , 2 Washington, such as the rods from Taiwan. And the Department<br />
of Energy was going to .end these materials theough the state<br />
of Washington without notifying usv<br />
I fear that there will be eventual leakage of radioactive wastes<br />
2 .1.1 through th e basalt rock at the <strong>Hanford</strong> area. Anything that jeopardises<br />
the purity of the Columbia river is indeed dangerous.<br />
Isn't there a type of rook. somewhere in the U.S. that is more<br />
solid than the basalt of the Columbia river area?<br />
3.3.5.2 1 don' t believe there are enough optima. The ones proposed<br />
do seem skimpy.<br />
2 . 2 . 1<br />
Ye., it's time for a permanent solution. The forty-three years<br />
would have surely been long enough to carefully study the enviro<br />
u ant and its strengths and weaknesses at <strong>Hanford</strong>. I don't<br />
feel that careful study has been made, and if not, start in now<br />
to make. in-depth studies and KEEP THE PUBLIC. INPORNED.<br />
Rich Rohm<br />
U.S. Rapt. of Bnsryp<br />
Riohl.d Operatims Oftina<br />
P.O. Box 55D<br />
Kchlar,C, We,<br />
Rear Sire,<br />
a... don't damp scalar acts at Henfo -e - 3.<br />
Perb.Ps Nevada if me ot bar smear.<br />
Hmzrard.<br />
And, plaeme ead prodaatim a plutonium at 2.<br />
Oar.. state a Vaebington is still b as ically<br />
A virgin state - love help Lt stay that say ae lone<br />
se we eon.<br />
5.2<br />
J<br />
Sls((rsPlJ1<br />
jj[(``^^{{<br />
Respectfully, yours.<br />
Cmm]N.te Ilewtetop<br />
Go. Penes<br />
(@s.) Bath Do ... rd<br />
2016 E. State Ave.<br />
Olympia, We- 98506
ut.<br />
oal '095<br />
RECEIVCD DOE-RL<br />
W<br />
JUL 18 1986^ pu'/Jma'^^^q<br />
WMOMS^ON-fJ.,PQf!d, '/>'^ /S July It. 1986..<br />
145 3 END xalten/<strong>EIS</strong><br />
^^ t -"C"D/<br />
US Department of Energy<br />
,y ' Iic hlnna Operations Office,<br />
U 550<br />
L^ Ricnt and, un 99952<br />
REINED DOERL<br />
JUL181M a6f5<br />
WMONISION<br />
Dear I. Holton:<br />
`q^,,^^^^^, //////^^^/// 3^<br />
^4^N-o This letter is in se8arde to the Department of Ene rgy'.a Jaly O • 1 • 1<br />
15 public hearing. to Seattle on the D<strong>EIS</strong> .fos. d lsposa. of L 1<br />
i/<br />
date... was tee aC the <strong>Hanford</strong> Il i<br />
•!— //'^^^^^^^„<br />
3.3. ,5.2 bJ^ !L 'Y"^r'—<br />
I oppaaa Me ie uae of Hanfasd sa,. p y f d f<br />
', ^D<br />
oasts ee11 as xist M1s wa<br />
3 1 1 ba<br />
star age<br />
.Pas 1 sages of existing tan<br />
v te t H f d t th C lv i<br />
+crz! Aivter p e that the basalt formation at <strong>Hanford</strong> cannot<br />
y<br />
Cain LF themcompounds eGr an ivtlefin its ptd of t.mo<br />
JC! ALA '/^ threa<br />
or increased u of <strong>Hanford</strong> far<br />
waste nmen<br />
peace<br />
^e<br />
a<br />
^/<br />
threat a xo the int g ity of to natural Sr m It alsoo<br />
p.... .says d...<br />
to le 1 1 of en camn nett<br />
aoxnst taam frm o a HfCo 1 n already conta naced 3.261 3.2.6.1<br />
d,y l>L ^ fisheries be a cart t higF ] i. eat. t.ca ,. ad<br />
uaetes aula art g tent. ID thr<br />
polluted s of<br />
p faue sa C.lumUis liver<br />
et<br />
la 1 a ac our age .,art<br />
Y<br />
y of it xh h has p e CGor. ecoram lc b on<br />
OQO /py<br />
i the commun<br />
t tea of tM1 Columbia AS Gorge.<br />
I the Department of Defense to look elsewhere for vaate<br />
t age, or better still to investigate arti m ens of<br />
^/ / ,^^j3 Q g this ge<br />
nuclear threat from future ge ne raat aone. a<br />
/ J Sincerely,<br />
/,/mss,.-raj<br />
^a+s<br />
W ^ /aoael<br />
Daniel Spatz<br />
11 S p ow Lane<br />
OJ.^ Units Salmon, WA 98672
7 -<br />
Ej<br />
09<br />
_ - oog17<br />
Q97<br />
9052 39th Ave: SW<br />
Seattle, WA 98136<br />
Scaly 19, 1986<br />
Rich Holton<br />
E(5, Department of Energy<br />
P. O. Box 550<br />
Richland, WA 99352<br />
Dear Mr. Holton:<br />
We are very much opposed to development of a long-form nuclear<br />
aete dump in Ne Richland, Washington area. Me reasons axe<br />
2.1.1<br />
n sue and too obvious to need restatement.<br />
Your. sincerely,<br />
1.1<br />
N<br />
W<br />
Mr. and Mrs. Robert H.<br />
Ferber<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
1.1<br />
JUL 18 1986 0o9G<br />
VJM DIVISION
e<br />
1•<br />
m<br />
a<br />
88°.18 f !U,<br />
1012 a1w.V ' ter<br />
3.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 18 1986<br />
JO a^`<br />
I `.(J • y-{ y{^ - / ^^ S VIM DIVISION 0094<br />
ILI<br />
3.5.3.6<br />
CO/<br />
s H eb.» s<br />
a g v(c6l .YO.,P ...<br />
^^ cJfl • 99n3s,",Z<br />
w rn<br />
2 M=<br />
o E3 cars s<br />
oz ^s slo<br />
?Q ..<br />
-<br />
—<br />
CG'L'^: C^^ ^.e. L^tt.—FxLGCF<br />
^ 3.3.2.1<br />
CJC^LU-4 ' • L'2 CG^^<br />
afu^4, µ,.HQ cz^c .^a-^Pc ^cc^7-,,^ , ^aag.P<br />
ij<br />
^i9;.3 fi.O^G c 3 _ row•. w4^—<br />
12 i0^, f<br />
/J<br />
SesY^le^ 'vJ;} I6//S
.<br />
'^ ,.<br />
^ ^ std a 1':p<br />
099 100<br />
July 1{, 19tl6<br />
JUL 18 'pB5 ^p<br />
6d99 JUL 18 IM<br />
U.S.<br />
U.B. Dept. er Energy<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
3001 Mow V^u WMDVLSION<br />
operations<br />
ympi., .S:.gw<br />
Richland Op<br />
P.O. Box 550<br />
Richland, WA. 99352<br />
Office<br />
_<br />
--<br />
^ l (^^ I^'<br />
be" gym) , r+ vt.^at, 1<br />
Ol W. 98501<br />
.^/<br />
7 / ,d {b4<br />
0/00<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
RECEIVED DDE-RL<br />
(.J<br />
V<br />
3.3.5.1<br />
3.3.5.2<br />
Mr. Sallee;<br />
Z w ti 4 'Im e wl.r - .{<br />
to leakaga-containment.. The media would have me believe that my choices<br />
bf" O' a^ tiv h(urfk+.ac^ hc<br />
narrow to one point: Where *hall my great-grandehildra¢ expect imminent<br />
u<br />
Z have not vet anyone, of the deans* of people I've spoken With,<br />
y"(jT{, .n p,^ ^^^^,^;,,.;I d<br />
ew ^<br />
3.3.5.1<br />
including my father (who is a retired Scale, engineer with 35 years of<br />
_Y<br />
experience) who dislikes or disapproves of my idea. It you find serious<br />
flare in it, please let me know.<br />
My suggestion is to remove tae Waste in Space Settle atop-otfe at<br />
a geosyncnrenous satellite whose only purpose I. to contain this seats<br />
until, When loaded into . shuttle SC's a., it I. blasted off into the<br />
Son. The Sun's gravitational pull Would take over 1. a Pew years and<br />
minimal control in all that Would be necessary. Shuttles take off for<br />
lighter reasons t es t this. Room systems could run the satellite. They<br />
can put care together;tney could do this Job. Very little danger to<br />
humane on the Space Shuttle flights since exposure in limited, if an y<br />
would Deed to exist. And, we would as rid of It forever.<br />
Thaix you for allowing me txs opportunity to help, if possible.<br />
$..y.u^.^., 3^0a^c<br />
` ^'0/<br />
T.D. YSliiame<br />
9UU north nth<br />
Renton, WA 98055
Im<br />
July 15, 1986<br />
USDOE, Richland Operations Office<br />
-Aten<br />
P .O.B.Ox -Ricn Holtwn<br />
550 RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
Richland, WA 99352<br />
JUL 18 W6 110/<br />
Over Mr. Molten.<br />
VIM DIVISION<br />
The following are my comments on the Draft <strong>EIS</strong>- Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Defense High-Level. Transuranic and Tank Wastes (DOE <strong>EIS</strong>-<strong>0113</strong>):<br />
Comments- <strong>Hanford</strong> Def.... West. Draft <strong>EIS</strong>,<br />
The Draft <strong>EIS</strong> is well written and easy to read. The alternatives<br />
presented cover all possible options. My comments are based on the<br />
following facts and observationai<br />
2.3.2.12<br />
1. The existence of the Defense Waste on the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Reservation, under current conditions, presents no hazard to the<br />
public.<br />
2. Assuming that no waste is g enerated fall operations are<br />
p shut down); that the sits i% monitored; and that the public is<br />
(p exci uded, as at present,. there is no hazard. to the public.<br />
00<br />
g3: There is no tional. incentive to recover . the Real Estate<br />
2#5, 1 val use of the <strong>Hanford</strong> Ste. <strong>Hanford</strong> will always be a controlled<br />
4. The largest quantity of radioactivity, as indicated in Table<br />
2- Page 1.11, is the5r-90 and the Cs-129. With their ^... rox. 30 year<br />
5J half-life, time is in our favor. The Waste produced in ending WW-II<br />
has al reatl, p....d through eno half-life! (Note that the table is<br />
somewhat misleadin g in that the plutonium and americium decay through<br />
ry / Ions chains. The radioactivity of the Eau ghters must be sidered in<br />
estimatin g te Hazard Index of the parent plutonium and americium.)<br />
3. ` 28<br />
3.1.2.<br />
5. The plutonium and americiumlocated in re1 tively small<br />
areas; the chemistry is such that they do nof tend to mi g rate from<br />
their fixed p ti.o the tl<br />
6. Removing 980 of the radioactive Materials from the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
2.5.7 J Svte will result in minor improvement in public Hazard. <strong>Hanford</strong> will<br />
remain a controlled area, and we now have a second controlled<br />
contaminated site.<br />
2 .5 . 1 ]. Thar. f ....enable, logical acener3o for essum in9 loss of<br />
institutional control in the year 2150 or at any other time.<br />
Under thane cosiderations the following conclusions regarding the the<br />
proposed alternatives can be made.<br />
I. Geologic Disposal— Nothin g is gained. There I. net lo<br />
resources and in safety. This alternative' should be dropped ṣs of<br />
Also<br />
see the Reference Alternative No. 3.<br />
2. In-Place Stabilization and Disposal-- Adequate; Accompishes most<br />
good.<br />
3. Reference (Combination Disposal)-- Effort is cosmetic. Double<br />
shell at ... d waste and or .... d TRU waste aa ad .... tely stared. It<br />
would accomplish greater "hazartl reduction-'if the sin g le shelled<br />
tanks were emptied and the buried TRU were retrieved and stabilized.<br />
It makes no a to stabilize the material in the double walled tanks<br />
and the drummed THU waste if the sin g le wafted tanks and the buried<br />
TRU wastes aree Jud ged adequately stored. A second site becomes<br />
contaminated and <strong>Hanford</strong> remains a controlled site. This alternative<br />
should be dropped and the WIPP pro gram, as a TRU only storage<br />
facility, should be terminated.<br />
4. No Disposal Action— This case ties alternative No. 2 as the best<br />
of action, particularly if lass of instutional control in the<br />
year 2150 is not asideration., It has the further advantage of<br />
avoiding action based<br />
con on current pressures that mi ght not be totally<br />
obJectsve. -<br />
One<br />
minor note: Defining NonrTRU waste as containing no<br />
plutonium If it contains less than 100 nanocuriez of piuton ium, fa<br />
e.inisent of the Lysenco/Stalin decree environmentally<br />
acquired<br />
traits can be passed on genetically. It would be more meaningful, and<br />
honesty to declare that waste containing less than 100 nanocuries of<br />
plutonium per g ram can be treated as if it contained no plutonium.<br />
This criterion should be justified in the <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
Respe tf it Submitted<br />
+IO<br />
n kf<br />
05 zn<br />
Ric land. WA 993e2<br />
(509) 946-8670<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL1806 Ole<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
3.3.2.1<br />
3.3.3.1<br />
3.3.4.1<br />
3.1.3.2<br />
2.4.1.8<br />
M. J. Szulinski<br />
M. J. Szulinski
n<br />
P F 1<br />
102 103<br />
I^<br />
RECEIVED DOEAL<br />
., JUL 18 1988<br />
0 107-<br />
p WMn DIVISION<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
J... P. Thma..<br />
E 414 AUgnat Avenue JUL 21 686<br />
O/03<br />
spoke n WA 9920]<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
h3T -./ 3 ^'L. /°-1D/tpK^<br />
V 1<br />
/^/9L94<br />
far<br />
and Took Wastes<br />
Disposal D of fBenfo id Defame high-Lvel. Tr'eneutuic<br />
W<br />
2.1.1<br />
3.3.5.1<br />
! /"`w l.L 1 Wl , a.c. T U<br />
^ti (^Q^w.. `f<br />
Q^<br />
SOnf V Q 0..w¢.<br />
(p LG l.Ci4<br />
n n _ /^<br />
(f -rat— CJT<br />
U<br />
(<br />
.(J Y`p^JO$ 1-Cal<br />
1^<br />
_y.).. S'7^' G<br />
//-^ e^ f^ Q^<br />
r&L^ / n /Ml<br />
/F .--1-^ O^`//<br />
.^t.1<br />
/ /^L<br />
^ / 3^ µ ^.^Z(,<br />
pp v ^4 ^^ S 11 G-2 .f-(^4L 69-a ,Q<br />
C/^<br />
// 1<br />
fJe, (f^ / IYLt. ^r..^ /1 17 ) /r f-<br />
LA C . SG.fE N^,<br />
T Q<br />
G^<br />
l/<br />
^<br />
^w ^^ //^^<br />
L(lil a'(—<br />
July 1 7 , 1986<br />
I ®dm aebe<br />
embofof [h[he<br />
e N [h t CI[IZ P [a on DHema<br />
W t e 9C i B Comltt of [Ae Nmford<br />
I anon Action L g.<br />
near groups will Be D[e tivg<br />
their own testimony d the following g e my personal<br />
comments o the Draft Environmental De feat Statement.<br />
1. To begin I command the Department f t investing<br />
their<br />
me a energy<br />
"—a ti va gp ever the past on menthe i inform and<br />
the People<br />
ed at<br />
ants Northwest M c pl situation<br />
E theInsertional: tnl:[ he<br />
Sanford d f t Unfortunately. Ae. Aee Gq 3r14 1.<br />
f it d<br />
include<br />
the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
of d ly<br />
P t ed y [ f to he I the<br />
mme onsid<br />
dese n M<br />
D p . r d I. of Energy pi a id A .tie defense<br />
at<br />
N f din<br />
pl Yn 1 vma t 1 Impact Statement.<br />
gi [ T61e<br />
fi ld Includethe tee in the 100 and 30D Such as<br />
tM1 fight id pia ti reactors. To not do this Is &eking<br />
people to solvejigsaw puzzle with many of the pi'<br />
missing. ...<br />
2. Whereas h comeezz has been raised b t the<br />
zadfosct3ve clear rearm., there is Insufficient attention<br />
to the problem of toxic chemical mare. no Department of<br />
En gy I yat to ..,late C p I elv in [ y of the 3.1.6.1<br />
mi wastes. not adequately<br />
^v s f; Wes. _^ / ,^.^<br />
^J f<br />
C^ f` / ^p / t^^^^^ h 1 Th Department o ddreesed<br />
thedisposal those<br />
//f l^'<br />
h sur l f t r t with has tautanything .1<br />
on ,<br />
the1nucl<br />
G3<br />
K<br />
feet this draft Environmental = p t Statement neglects to 3.1.4.32<br />
a Jose<br />
y<br />
gne Battelle t dl of theinteractions<br />
between<br />
f)^I l G. ^U3^^ '^ a /^ ^ lLC "` 0 R 3 oC.<br />
Hevf d 19 Mi enure<br />
explored possibilities the f explosionsin 1 ti g waste<br />
.^(^<br />
n<br />
/ y^<br />
tnka (PNL-5453 C mpl x am Stability Investigation, Task 2 -<br />
^j. n y<br />
.+.,. S (//le<br />
I , (j t%C C.P, / 1 3y^u^ h tti C W3.. (.(./ lop 0result Compl r E.C. Hartle).<br />
w (!<br />
/^(rnT//t<br />
/nC^p =<br />
3. After reading the draft <strong>EIS</strong> it becomes c 1 that<br />
3.3.5.4<br />
at of the proposed dispo 1 th d<br />
have yet to be y oven.<br />
Alts gh [he D.p.P.a.t Dan rece i d pp t<br />
for gl ifying<br />
,be oal3d wastes 1 the double-shell the<br />
1 t yet<br />
n inced chat this technology i suitable for deep geologic<br />
dip coal .' uncertainty 1 grantingof e of the<br />
wastes.According to Dvvela Provost of Washington State,<br />
grouting contains hazardous chemlcale and therefore falls
1.<br />
'1 fr<br />
/T<br />
4<br />
-7<br />
0<br />
^<br />
d£<br />
X<br />
103 103<br />
_2_<br />
_g_<br />
RECEIVED D06RL<br />
N<br />
2 .5.6<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
2 .3.2.3<br />
order provisions of the R esource Cumeaveriov and Recov ery<br />
Act (RCRA). no draft <strong>EIS</strong> dose not explain how or when it<br />
will seat the Rem requiremeces. Gthra methods a still iv<br />
the canceptI deal, are,. o rely ideas as paper. The<br />
Input= of Energy does set Anne how to safely dispose of<br />
the current wastes. Therefore the DepmerNnt should halt OW<br />
production of plutonium until the current stackpile of wastes<br />
1e disposed of 1In m acceptable asnv. en Arg um ents that much<br />
e plutonium p.do a. halt would he. national a arit, are<br />
The United States paeeeuee more than e is<br />
necessary to meat any reasonable need for national a writ y.<br />
Horever, o<br />
though easeEnvironmental<br />
this draft Impact<br />
State me nt speaks of future defame wastes, it offers no<br />
justification for future plutonium production. She ci[iesn a<br />
of the Northman ..I be told why they should ...ties. me<br />
live with the risks of <strong>Hanford</strong> operations.<br />
4. With regards to the throe dispo sa l options Presented<br />
In the draft <strong>EIS</strong>, I would favor the Department directing its<br />
arch to the geologic disposal option. 1 me aware that<br />
this could m... Incre as ed radiation .,..are to <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
markers and char it in the most expensive alternative.<br />
However I believe that this current generation Is morally<br />
obligated to accept all the Tie" and coats • ociatedwith<br />
cheer ma[ae. The majority of the American people have<br />
thePOrtsd the govemmmt'e nuclear vespoue buildup by their<br />
votes and [ ax es. It has been this nuclear weapons buildup<br />
that has produced these wastes. Many in the United Staten.<br />
though I am not m agree that the risks of these "Stan are<br />
eeptable because of the .—called benefit of national<br />
unity, supposedly was by America's nuclear arsenal. The<br />
Present obligation In to clues, the wastes that have be<br />
,reduced. With any —.to. tee left iv H an ford soil., farm.<br />
gonsta[ions will say reap the risks without enjoying my of<br />
the benefits.<br />
If this is truly ..a series under God. then we sh ould<br />
ms¢ fulfilling our call [a be re...ible m seaward.,<br />
beneflcting our dignity as manor. . This beautiful' earth<br />
I. .red. ell. of axe will be judged we has well we take cut.<br />
of it.<br />
5. Given the lack of information concerning easy aspects<br />
of Raeford'sounces. of which the Department readily<br />
ackuovledgea theDOB moat co mm it itself, at student, to a<br />
suppleme ntal HIS. I would eu,,.t that c period of five<br />
year. wsld be enough for he Do,.,. v[ to provide the<br />
public with .effici en t infor ma tion. cititent owed this<br />
Information to esponsibly, porti ipar. I. the decision-mkies<br />
prone...<br />
6. There Ss considerable uncertainty about the DOE<br />
basis, sufficient financial r m s to insure the Bdegte um<br />
disposal of all defense eats. Me p.a,1. of the Northeut<br />
will base to generate the necessary s Political support for the<br />
cleanup of the existing wastes. H ow ever, the cleanup of<br />
future raatee (a ea continued plutonium pa.d..tian)<br />
should be funded an e pay-ea-yon-ge basis. Similar to<br />
Provision. contained In the Nuclear Neste Polity Act of 1982<br />
(for the diepoaal of commercial mee nuclear wastes), the price of<br />
special nuclear materials should include a surcharge<br />
sufficient to guarantee the safe dispo sa l of subsequent<br />
raatee.<br />
7. note c on tinues to be.eonfmfon as to shat wastes ar<br />
high-level and which are n Within the present management<br />
system of defense wastes. it 1s too easy to bypass certain<br />
dlepoe.l.requlre rate by elesly —.1 ... ifying the vast...<br />
What r ce high-level vest. Is em considered ion-level<br />
an d n<br />
be c a n disposed of I. A lee ctrl....[ fashion. This I.<br />
of .peclal concern with the WE because thin agency 1s still<br />
too far removed from public a restlny. To correct this<br />
s1[ua[Son. I propose the following two ce ome .d.tions.<br />
First, the Department should provide epa.Ifia definitlo.e far<br />
the soriove wa g e. classifications and include the. 1. the<br />
final <strong>EIS</strong>. Second, there need. to be Rudeness! at oversight<br />
and licensing of the Department's disposal preedcee. 'The<br />
Nuclear Regulatory Coevi.eia., the Environmental Protection<br />
Agency and the affected states of Dregon, Idaho and<br />
-Washington could merve this function.<br />
S. The <strong>EIS</strong> states that 190 kg. of plutonium in the nail<br />
will be cleaned up (page A.1)). Hanover. a .rdtg to<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> documents, this will mean that ever 100 kg. will<br />
amain an the Sanford site;(BNHL-1779 UC-70. 1972 Waste<br />
Disposal S^aoy, page 4'ead How-1701. 1991 Waste Disposal<br />
Smeary, page 12). Leaving more than 100 kg.' in <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
soil. Se op.ccept.blep 10 WE. might be acceptable.<br />
9. 1 have numerous questions regarding the<br />
tr an sportation of THU wastes to H an ford from offare. In the<br />
Gctober 1903 Def.... Vase and Byproducts He ....... c Novthly<br />
Report (MH PB-SR-lo BWH), it states an page 30 that "affairs<br />
was received<br />
from Gage ra Park, Lawrence Berkeley,<br />
Recr-NCCeeand Weetivgbou.e....A total of 233 dr um s of TRO<br />
vast. has been received from Kerr-McGee into 9/01/83.' Now<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> received 233 drums in ju.two mouths from an<br />
company, what Ss the total scope of the altns lacc,<br />
Has and<br />
.her are these<br />
in the DBIS? What are the<br />
contract d angements an d wih which compaviea Who pays for<br />
the dlspaeal Haw much has been transparted t to <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
already and how much will be transported to the NIP Project<br />
in Now Basics?<br />
JUL 21 ON 0105<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
2.2.9<br />
2.2.10<br />
3.1.1.9<br />
2.2.13<br />
3.1.5.5<br />
3.1.3.4<br />
3.4.2.7<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 21 WS 0103<br />
WM DIVISION
- 3 n fi ..i 0 ^<br />
c<br />
33441. -'2. 1 " 6xn...ewest<br />
Sentf(c., Wa5lniNq(pi„Q^(!19 5+ -ZtL^ do. vlo'F -trwrt- 1. j k-. DoE<br />
-. Tc.ty t1^lq %6 becwus 0- c!) -rye;: . 3006. k. 3 1a-A - tv<br />
{law. --L (-') rl e, â6E ^ no l-<br />
R.A.Not+ti CO Ceyy^a<br />
l6caveo",RL K oloot# -t u- 1, tat+L-<br />
L,,s. DQyl +N.a_ed- . '^P e:,..t.v9y.<br />
JUL<br />
...<br />
8. 1 ises ova Pe. FLQ- a,-.. -t^,...... c"'Xo a.. .<br />
4<br />
`l.. .<br />
l^i c^n`a sQ O?ew>t MJ<br />
1,MDIVISI()!y<br />
1' 0 • . 6-A )Sd<br />
2,'^l ^a d, ^a s1 =.,tai. 99 3 Y Z<br />
). na7bP-. Wlna (VC Iwo-M^.^. :o 'h- .'<br />
-1i al- -r,t.. oo a a nv\ r.; acca.<br />
( r^wt t t p gov lnx.+ of C-Vg4,5<br />
ti. CIXL^o sQ o ro. n.3,, a.-{I't Ct wr: i'1'Qw {1 .°1l^9^^,d b`e.- ('.a.Akf o^ +,.a_ ^CQar'}tw..ch<br />
N
!!<br />
.a ^`'v``2, a 1. ^ d va #^^j'"<br />
^ ^^^ y<br />
^^<br />
^<br />
. s<br />
k^`?. y + fill;<br />
Ls.'^b`^1'• l F 6^ FF<br />
S`^' i,^ atq, ^ w^, - 4 ^^'<br />
w^^,^C^^ ,g .,<br />
9 v L<br />
{^ s ru^w<br />
'a<br />
^ ^.. gd_ P^^ k +, '3''^ ^3i<br />
wn^"' ^ ^ M<br />
$^ tltl<br />
rs "^`^',^A^{p a rt av^«.., a axe ^ ^^ ^ ^ .,<br />
g55gtL ,ap$1' , tst+ue<br />
i3d<br />
7<br />
'<br />
i; . aw. {yy,r<<br />
".,err 1<br />
gi/^<br />
1: _^_ A<br />
.^' " j3"L ^;.. ^' g:^ n N $^ ter, ^' 'p !' ^ ?^^"` 9'„^'<br />
T 7 clia ^ , ^ ^ d P<br />
#<br />
^.a•,mm Ei^<br />
I^<br />
^s at- ^ yM( m7 1 r Ik<br />
r'"9 t erg+ x k Am y<br />
• "^ ^S } ^,.<br />
yp,<br />
'Ap1<br />
A^ r j^.,<br />
^YF4^ #F ^TiW,<br />
fl<br />
T.^ Si<br />
3qY a m yK Fep+-r59, ^T-`° I<br />
p<br />
fl t ^ I<br />
^h`* A66<br />
^^$ ^^'}^ 3) 64A A<br />
^dY.r".dkS^dY¢i`yM . ya F 1®swr.f<br />
ys.'<br />
YxA<br />
m<br />
,{jbA d.Ir ^Mn i .y<br />
:MV... ,<br />
P^`o-<br />
^°^(t( ktg<br />
$AtA^<br />
^d^^^L I.^ ^.<br />
P<br />
}<br />
J<br />
r^a'^<br />
'Y { a ^<br />
p<br />
^ ^ c-^`2'2^Y L^ r ^ X<br />
we<br />
b ^ (i^o-* ,Fks ^ ve ^<br />
w<br />
,,,".. ^ w ^r<br />
Q<br />
Rg<br />
$<br />
p<br />
a
ON<br />
Im<br />
\4k16 Sb 3<br />
'^-6\ WA<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL210 6 0105.. _ Z C _.6Q3-o 4. Pl<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
16 7 05 Meplewild Ave. S.W.<br />
Seattle, Waeh, 98166<br />
July 19, 1986<br />
Rich Spite.<br />
US. Department of Energy<br />
Richland Operations office<br />
P.O, Box 550<br />
Richland, Wash. 99352<br />
-<br />
pri_`,o }alt VI_.<br />
JUL 21 M CM,<br />
NlM O!'dfSION<br />
REGARDING: Draft envirmmental . impact Statement on radioactive defauee Santa<br />
Mr. Eoltenf<br />
W<br />
owi^-IO.row s\^ C¢+u\ J\C\C co'\ I`^°..\<br />
\J I<br />
u^\tor w .n,y \.^ mlis^uio^.\ ^S o... v-e vr^c.Ty^ V e'pY<br />
' '<br />
^C' s\v'C '^s\sLc a\. o^ Iti.rt" e^.,..re'^%\ prda(/u
i 4 1: 0<br />
10'7 107<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.2.10<br />
2.4.1.8<br />
2.4.1.4<br />
2.3.2.7<br />
Testimony of Joan Mootry, Rt. 1, Box 554, Spokane, WA 99204 RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
Presented to the U.S. Department of Energy<br />
Spokane hearing on <strong>Hanford</strong> Pefenae Waste Environmental Impact Scat Wrote 2 1986<br />
July 17, 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
I we an active participant I. and an advocate for the democratic process.<br />
One of the moat blatant examples of abuse of the democratic process that I've<br />
encountered Has been the Delartment of Energy's attempt to appear committed<br />
to deal honestly with its massive amounts of nuclear garbage, while following<br />
Its own agenda co make more and dump it into the sail, air and water as usual.<br />
For example, by 1982 WE's practice of dumping defense waste directly<br />
into the soil bed caused 12 million cubic meters of <strong>Hanford</strong>'s soil to become<br />
so contaminated with plutonium that WE's ow guidelines required the soil<br />
to be transferred to WE's underground waste facility is New Mexico. But the<br />
site tempt hold that much waste, end the cost of excavation and abipment<br />
.old Have been enormous. So WE solved the problem by raising, by SO tines,<br />
Its own guidelines for plutonium concentration in soil. With the stroke of<br />
a pen, plutonium-contaminated waste became low-level waste, and plutonium<br />
mail.... to micas. in <strong>Hanford</strong>'¢ soil.<br />
Here Is another example of how WE, on paper, solves its technical and<br />
Budgetary dilemma: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires. that <strong>Hanford</strong>'s<br />
29 million Endless of high-level waste in tanks, plus its 500,000 gallon<br />
already looking into the emirmznmt, be solidified and buried in A high-level<br />
waste repository licensed by NEC. So. WE simply issued WE Order 5820.2<br />
which makes a distinction between wastes produced before the Act and ;hose -<br />
produced after, making earlier wastes not subject to the Act.<br />
For those here today who might feel beholden to WE for presenting an<br />
environmental impact statement on Nanfe,d'a defense Waste, I Went to make<br />
one thing very clear. Tbe HIS was not drafted became of WE's concern for<br />
the environment or the safety of citizens. It was drafted because citizens<br />
Have ended <strong>Hanford</strong>'s 42-year history of _obscurity; . public pressure forced<br />
this <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
And true to form. WE has onceagain turned the spirit of the HIS into<br />
e costly exercise in futility. The time allotted for citizens to stud y the<br />
document and to testify about it appears to Have been purposefully inadequate,<br />
man again revealing how WE continues to view citizens' opinion with<br />
contempt.<br />
-1-<br />
-I wish to remind the Energy Department that it is working for us. It's<br />
stone-age practice of dumping radioactive and chemical waste directly into<br />
the ground is unacceptable to us If it continues such practices i spite of 2 . 2.10<br />
then something c is very Wong with the way democracy is functioning in<br />
America.<br />
American citizens are paying the wages for each and every member of this<br />
bureaucracy. We are even paying over $5 million this year alone for <strong>Hanford</strong>'s - 2.5 . 5<br />
"public relations" so that highly-paid apokespereoae for the department and<br />
its contractors can tell us what a fine job they're doing. We don't believe<br />
them.<br />
Like inexperienced farmhands gone. berserk, WE and Its contractors Have<br />
occupied our land, used our monetary and physical resources to feed their<br />
insatiable ancred co s, and paid us back by letting the c defecate<br />
their dangerous poisons into the very agricultural heartland of our region.<br />
And they continue to do eol'<br />
Common logic demands that the front-end of this nuclear misadventure be<br />
addressed before the back-and can be deult with appropriately. As long as<br />
plutonium production continues at <strong>Hanford</strong>. WE's current, limp attempt to<br />
address the problems of defense waste will be viewed correctly as the farce<br />
that it is.<br />
Existing defense waste must be cleaned up, of course, And WE Has heard<br />
hundreds of Northwest citizens testify that safety, not economics, should be<br />
the min. priority. People are willing to Pay , for the most reliable and safe<br />
procedures available. But, compared to other WE facilities, federal appropriations<br />
for <strong>Hanford</strong>'. cleanup are exceedingly low, revealing that the department's<br />
priority at <strong>Hanford</strong> is expediency, not safety. Now then, can we believe<br />
that this hearing is anything but a mockery?<br />
Clear in the minds of Northwest citizens is them y of months spent<br />
t<br />
2 .5 . 6<br />
.L<br />
rl . 1<br />
studying incomplete and inaccurate data on the repository. The public's<br />
studied opinion that <strong>Hanford</strong> is not geologically or hydrologically suitable 2.1.1.<br />
tees mirrored by reputable independent scientists throughout the country, nut,<br />
regardless of the scientific data, WE pursued its own political agenda, and<br />
lame excuses were made.<br />
Speaking of a c.am, citizens nationwide are fed up with WE's ploy of<br />
Painting to "national security" and "Congressional mandates" In order to<br />
duck-and-cover when held to accountability.<br />
RECEVEL DOS RL<br />
-2- JUL 221988<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
pj57
4, Y^<br />
EM<br />
107 108<br />
2 .1<br />
WE has violated the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by eliminating ee[ontl-round<br />
repository pas sites. It has purposefully destroyed (if the even existed) docu-<br />
manta related to its selection of HenEo[dl It originally claimed that ane[lenel<br />
SPOKANE, WASNINGTDN<br />
RECEVEL) DQURL<br />
JULY 15, 1906 JUL 22<br />
UNITAD STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
0/0Y,<br />
s¢CUr1Cya pre anted it Ervin. telling .boat Raeford's manaive amounts Of radioactive<br />
SPOKANE PUBLIC HEARING<br />
2.5.5<br />
iodine released upon unsuspecting American citizens. And, amidst probing questions<br />
and critical testimony, it BOB recently twice walked at on the Congress of the<br />
United States of America. Its bureaucratic bungling and scornful disregard for<br />
DEAR SIRS,<br />
citizen and Congressional authority are legion. Yet, when pressed, individuals<br />
within WE lament that "Congress made us do 1t."<br />
I am a long-time resident of this area having Just recently returned from<br />
I submit that the U.S. Department of F ergy has deceived Congress. just as<br />
working out of state and now residing in Spokane, Washington.<br />
it has the people of the Northwest. Coca again, I wish to firmly remind WE<br />
Officials that thin is a do ... r.... end that we-the-people are your employer.<br />
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the Issue of disposal of<br />
F3<br />
A<br />
2.5.6<br />
boss and highest authority. We are telling you that continued plutonium prodne-<br />
tisn at <strong>Hanford</strong> is unnecessary for national defense, Is incompatible with cleanup<br />
of Nonfood and is causing unnarept,dble risk to American citizens.<br />
radioactive wastes from the Sanford nuclear site.<br />
I believe that the best solution to the current situation is for the<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> jobs need not be eliminated. but companies and workers should be United States to collectively contain insofar as is possible all nuclear ^.<br />
paid to clean up the was instead of making more. This will keep them occupied wastes from around the country and to store them in the most stable ,{<br />
for decades, if not centuries, with restorative work of which they, themselves,<br />
and citizens everywhere Can be proud.<br />
pYY<br />
geological formations that can be found, most probably underground salt<br />
3<br />
formation.. I s appose on-site disposeI by ., m ass as this la7<br />
would surely perpetuate the pnisen£ng of the land and water which has<br />
addC<br />
already begun. We Sat retract and contain a cash of this terribly deadly .l<br />
RECEI V7C DOE-RL<br />
material as is possibl e . and begin to reduce and f inall y eliminate the<br />
JUL 22 1986 sources from which it comes.<br />
2'i<br />
.<br />
L 1 1 .<br />
1<br />
2. 5. 6<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
We have a responsibility to our families and to our nation: a responsibility<br />
to future generations and really to all life on this planet. The whole world<br />
is watching; now and in times to come. Will we act intelligently and responsibly<br />
or will we will we act in fear and in greed? 6<br />
As a citizen of the country which I love most deeply. I call on you to<br />
e^<br />
y^t, 'f<br />
please awaken to this great task and to begin the work ubich must begin now 2. 2 . 1<br />
in order to secure a safe and peaceful world for all mankind.<br />
o<br />
f<br />
Respectfully years,<br />
/<br />
g<br />
Kanaeth W. burchel—<br />
"'^¢/ ^• `^' m^ "/ RR^<br />
3
4<br />
0<br />
£.<br />
109 im<br />
C<br />
HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
PUBLIC HEARING RECEIVED DDE-RL<br />
AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE JUL 22 IM p/pq<br />
1. Now did y ou learn of the hearings?<br />
VIM DIVISION<br />
Newspaper Radio TV _ Mail — At work<br />
Word of mouth — Other (alease specify)<br />
10) 3= 2l t ,x.6-I '^Zn.i^k';.--0.'^:^-4, c--.,.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 22 1986 plpi b<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
2. Did you attend one of the <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste O p en Houses in<br />
Februar y or March? Yes — No<br />
3. Did y ou attend one of the <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Informational<br />
Worksho p s In Ma y or June? Yes — No<br />
x<br />
4. Did you have access to a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact<br />
Statement or the Summar y ? Yes _ No<br />
2 .1.1<br />
M<br />
5<br />
l -<br />
Please rate each of the following<br />
- Very Good Goad Fir Poor<br />
Hearin gs moderator<br />
Procedures for recordin g comments<br />
Physical arran g ements —<br />
2.5.5<br />
6.<br />
Process for requesting to comment -_ oK —<br />
Five minute comment period<br />
Please share any additional comments y ou may have about these hearings.<br />
za<br />
d<br />
— 2 .2.14<br />
?.<br />
An y duition ? ^^ o ¢om eX67 bout the process of submittin g written<br />
comments on the Draft Environmental Im pact Statement?<br />
14—"we)44<br />
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS HEARING AND TAKING THE TIME TO FILL OUT<br />
THIS QUESTIONNAIRE,
D<br />
k<br />
^wT<br />
1W<br />
IM<br />
RECEIVED DOERL<br />
keC FIVER . DOE.RL<br />
V<br />
2,2.1<br />
2.2.14<br />
2.2.14<br />
Promising U. Science, : Biving Us Politics-<br />
' Wi lliemHarper Hnuff , PT .D.<br />
JUL 2 a ^^<br />
WM DIVISIpN<br />
In an editorial published at the time YOU, the United States<br />
Department of Energy, issued Your Draft Environmental Impact<br />
Statement On the disposal. of <strong>Hanford</strong>'s defense waste,: the<br />
Tr - City Herald compared Your task to the one HrrcUlrs had -<br />
Ih"cl eansing the Augean stables. in fact, the Herald<br />
one LU tletl that your labor is greater.<br />
I would agree. But I would also take the comparison<br />
'further. For( -although Hercules was memorable hero', he<br />
wa ^ l ver y responsible one<br />
According to the famous Greek m yth, the stables of Aueas, g<br />
King of Elis, had been collecting filth for thirty Years.<br />
You have been doing likewise for over fort y . And Hercules<br />
did his Job in single day by diverting the River Alpheus<br />
through the place and washing the waste dovnriver. Your<br />
task will take much longePI and we are desperatel y concerned<br />
that you not do something similar with the Columb i a! On<br />
We do not oppose the disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong>'s defense wastri we<br />
fee., it, We onl y wish you had had greater foresight and<br />
responsibility when You began. ..and continued the contbminatier.<br />
W concerned that, r n me you '.... tle with the<br />
awesome problems of disposal, You are adding more waste to<br />
the mass. And we are desperatel y Concerned that, In Your<br />
e ff ertz at cl...... you net make a bad problem worse!.<br />
Much Of what You do at <strong>Hanford</strong> is notified b y the word<br />
'science,' AI thOUgM1 increasingly distrusted, your science<br />
still has t power. grea And that i is bobering, for science<br />
deserves better than You have donewith ,It.<br />
The problem 1st you start off doing science and and up<br />
corrupting it with politics Y There is no better example of<br />
that than the choice of <strong>Hanford</strong> as On. of the finalists for<br />
a civilian high-level nuclear waste repository.<br />
All along in Your repositor y selection, You emphasized that<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> would be chosen ONLY if it were proven safe by<br />
scientl4ic study . But even though <strong>Hanford</strong> ranked fifth in<br />
early every technical aspect, when the finalist choices<br />
made, H&" Ord suddenl y Jumped to third. Wh y? Because<br />
,up<br />
e -wanted' to characteri Z. a basalt site..'..<br />
-Testimon<br />
y<br />
presented at the USDDE hearing on its draft -<br />
Environmental Impact Statement on 'Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Defense Hlgh-Level, Transuranic And 'lank Wastes,' Spokane<br />
Cit y Hall, Jul y 17, 1986.<br />
Jul. 22 IM<br />
6116<br />
When I became a ac lent l at, one of the cardinal rul WMDIVISION<br />
learn was that the facts reported not be colored by what I<br />
• wan b d!'<br />
I ♦ tread all of this because It ¢Ul Dies your reputation in<br />
general and compromises Your D<strong>EIS</strong> In particular, The Job'<br />
that needs doing will take all the power and trustworthiness<br />
that science at its best can Offer. Set because of Your<br />
past pe f r ce s the p ssibil lt'es that the work will be 2 e C e L<br />
ar axpe v an tlt L ag b00ndoggl a almost all one<br />
J :J<br />
aee.<br />
we Ill<br />
H<br />
t t<br />
nc coerns noted, let me now make a few cenmants about<br />
Your D<strong>EIS</strong>....<br />
First and always, I me disturbed b y the enormous number of<br />
assumptions that go on to become the basis of critical<br />
calculations: YOU know a well as I that errors tend to 4lrtQ 4. 1.20<br />
multiply with every at.,, s and almost all 01 Your prognostica<br />
tions Involve vmultiple. steps.<br />
Time after time, You admit that the procedures contemplated<br />
and the machiner y . required have net been tested or BVen<br />
designed. One of the more intriguing terms to Your document<br />
is 'p .... nceptual.'<br />
4 e 1 e<br />
I searched Your glossar y , and the word 'precvnce,ptual•.<br />
not defined.. Neither it found In the dictionar y . About<br />
the closest the dictionar y canes is 'preconception,- which<br />
I¢ tlefi ed as 'pttiutl c- .' An anal ysis of the. ore's con— 4e 1 e8<br />
stituent parts suggests that when You sa y .'preconceptual,'<br />
what You mean is that You haven't thought about something.<br />
That troubles m<br />
There are any technical details In Your D<strong>EIS</strong> that worr y me.<br />
I regret that You have allowed onl y five minutes for overbal<br />
testimony at this hearing -- but half of what was permitted<br />
at the civilian repositor y Environmental Assessment hearing.<br />
Somehow, more comforted when our concerns are spoken<br />
out here In Public F they risk ending Ina file<br />
2 p 3 2 12<br />
box 'a where, perhaps n .,.In to'Bae the light of day. B. •<br />
Because this Is how you have structured these hearings, I an<br />
attaching an appendix to the written co py of this testimony.<br />
D hope it will be read<br />
no taken seriously ....<br />
One of my grea te st worries about Your defense waste cleanup<br />
safety<br />
is accountability. How do we knw that human health and<br />
.111 have the<br />
too How 01How<br />
'01,ty?<br />
established quality control standards will be fell Wed i<br />
this critical and complex task? How do we knW that, once<br />
How<br />
begun, the Job will be completed as planned? do we know<br />
that the bi i Ilona of dollars needed for tbls prole Pt will be<br />
p roper l y spent?<br />
is<br />
we know that<br />
2 • 2a 1
110 110<br />
.N<br />
2.2.13<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
2.2.14<br />
2.5.5<br />
3.3.4.1<br />
3.1.4.25<br />
_ 9 _<br />
=WED DOE-RL<br />
NECEIVED Cv- 2L<br />
4UL 221986<br />
'4' JUL 22 W6<br />
Anyone factorDIVISION<br />
1,-fondod familiar with waste and graft an latheWM And, tlo.f at the gravel strategy<br />
WM<br />
0IID<br />
moderate I<br />
create hi gb-level<br />
quaky .4 Sunda pr p loctf is bound to about both the waste nuclear Nuclear y es, all of whichn shoultl be legally<br />
quality of the work tla. and the war the e man month i4 handled. licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory P<br />
as required 4 w 1 w/<br />
ea sort of lad<br />
t, the to Chsas uncap the Nuclear Waste Policy Actt of 19S2<br />
19529<br />
waste cleanu<br />
p ispractically ourfi dent an open invitation nvtation to recut. I<br />
all a of hope !bat, in Your nalh an will fa reassure s On<br />
all of this by p.oYitling a mech.. +ni an far public accovntabllitY!<br />
My final concern is this.... I urge You to adopt the safest<br />
and most permanent alternative in your D<strong>EIS</strong> -- geologic<br />
disposal. And I would add to that recommendation an equally<br />
fervent be mme endation that the deep repositor y chosen not<br />
be on the ver y banks of the Columbia River. Such a choice<br />
not onl y violates the scientific facts but common sense and<br />
moral principle as wall.<br />
8an0thinh .1...... You know as well as I.do that, if the<br />
deep -geologic alternative is to work, v<br />
most<br />
Immediately<br />
erse ylur crassl y pol.ltical tlecision to suspend the<br />
a. arch for a .C.Od-round repositor y site in the East.<br />
Otherwise, you will not have ram for both the civilian<br />
waste sad the defense mate.<br />
i and with the some concern with which I began. Thou9hout<br />
your fort y-year legac y, you have promised us science and<br />
safet y and given us politics and pollution. In the process,<br />
Inman h health and trust. - e onomic and social priprrties/<br />
tleme¢.atic and scientific cprocess . Say. all been sacrificed.<br />
I hope to God that r. will do better than that with your<br />
Offense waste'<br />
Aeaend'x<br />
Be yond the primar y Yalu* that human health and safety,<br />
pr sent lad future, should take priorit y over economic. or<br />
politics, there is on e other general principle that should<br />
be uppermost in your thinking ac you go about the defense<br />
waste cl soup.. This is that whatever you do should at ..d<br />
up making a bad situation wars!. Even under the best of<br />
conditions and Intentions, there is reason to fear that You<br />
will spend billions of dollars converting your waste Into<br />
forms where it will be even more difficult to Process.<br />
further, should that become n ....all.<br />
For a am p le, in on. of your alternatives You propose leaving<br />
the alt sludge In the bottoms of the 149 single-walled.<br />
tanks in place and filling the tanks with gravel. What<br />
happens if you later need to at at that sludge because it<br />
If continuing to be an environmental hazard (a$ sane of it<br />
has already don% by looking)?<br />
Something else that bathers me is haw you hay omitted am.<br />
300 r ad i ologicallY-contaminated sites at <strong>Hanford</strong> Fran your<br />
cleanup Plans. In 1980, with A stroke of the Pen, r<br />
transformed man y millions of cubic metals of transuranic<br />
wash to a 1Cw-la Vel Categor y . Whereas the lower limit for<br />
TRU waste used to be 10 nanocuries per gram, USDOE order<br />
5820.2 summaril y raised the limit to 100 n es per<br />
Crash. Uni or tuna tel y, the hazard involved Old r not change at<br />
all!<br />
It worries me, too. that I. your di .cuss inns of ........a<br />
like vitrification and grouting, no formulations with test<br />
suits are listed. You do refer generall y to the fact that<br />
the a c Of both processes depends p u pon conprnsatln9 for<br />
the particular ..at. composition i volved. Aa a chemist, I<br />
know that the, ph ysical. properties of both glass and concrete<br />
are compromised by any + impurities present. And, when You a<br />
say vitrification and grouting, you a e talking about<br />
turning out tons and tons of impure glass and concrete.<br />
I worr y about leaching from im p roperl y-formulated grout.<br />
The Savannah River Plant's <strong>EIS</strong> admits that studies on the<br />
leachability. of grout are in a 'preliminar y stage'-- hardly<br />
a proven Process.<br />
In the absence of test results, I worr y also about atmospheric<br />
emissions from your vitrification process. While<br />
sam.tim.. cited as an encouraging example, the French Vitrificaclon.plant<br />
on the eritan y Peninsula has Y bad reputation<br />
en radioactive emissions.<br />
Several Other concerns.... You have written loop D<strong>EIS</strong> risk<br />
sessment% in terms of what rdo can reasonabl y uanticipate.<br />
Yet, most serious nuclear a cidents hae involved the<br />
unexpected. Because t I. Cmprebable, IYou noften minimize<br />
the Potentially catastro p hic. '<br />
Far example, I. section H.4.$. on b.ndlimg 'Pre-1970 TRU<br />
Solid West*,- there is the mention of a possible accident<br />
from 'criticalit y due. to changes in fissile geometr y during<br />
subsidence Operations.' That sounds like a full-scale<br />
nuclear disaster tom -- smething comparable to what<br />
happened at Kysht ym in 1957 and nearl y happened at <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
in 1973.<br />
Also, your discussion of Socioeconomic Impacts (Appendix K)<br />
is Cry mechanical and completel y ignores a crucial matter<br />
citizen perception and ....It. This is the most<br />
important imponderable of all -- one that is still only<br />
2.4.1.8<br />
3.1.8.1<br />
3.1.8.13<br />
3.1.8.1<br />
3.1.8.10<br />
3.4.3.8<br />
3.4.3.8<br />
3.2.6.3
110 111<br />
3.2.6.3<br />
2.5.1<br />
2.5.1<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
2.5.6<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
5 JUL 22 1986<br />
whl.pered about.. Most peapl. do act went to nee, work WMPIVISION<br />
ra Ise families near. nuclear fern hies. And, whether You<br />
know it pr not, net v.0 do at Wsof Ord has became a social<br />
antl a on pmlc blight in Eastern Washington. Alread y . there<br />
Ia evi tlence that n w businesses art reluctant to locate<br />
here, phase shoal d e y ou rJactivities sAd reputation camprani se<br />
the marketabilit y of Washington's agricultural products, an<br />
economic satastroph y of unparalleled scope will be the<br />
r.sui t.<br />
Another: Important matter.... Several times In your<br />
preambles to sections, You mention full awing the most<br />
conservative lines of reasoning and reckoning. Yet, Your<br />
descriptions repeatedly manifest a facile optimism.<br />
Several times You assure us, 'While there Is no intention 0f<br />
the federal government to ever leave the site....' Lome on<br />
No g ovement, rn much less cwll iza[ion. has ever lasted<br />
the 1 time Your wastes will remain dangerous. In fact, Your<br />
D<strong>EIS</strong> assumes loss of institutional control by the Year 2150<br />
-- a il`ymfraction of the time much of the waste will be<br />
hazardous.<br />
What You are planning must outlast climate changes, ice.<br />
a9es, geological u pheavals, and, if i we so lucky, human<br />
populations whose understandin gs, languages, values and<br />
purposes will be ver y different from our own.<br />
For this latter reason alone, it is crucial that vo adopt<br />
the most permanent and inaccessible alternative --f he<br />
geologic disposal. And Iwould add to that recommendation<br />
an equall y fervent re entlation that the deep repos i tprr<br />
chosen not be wlthina stone's throw of the Columbia River.<br />
Finall y , midst all of the doubt and contr ... ra y aver how<br />
Your defense waste should be handled, there it m atter<br />
that s s clear and unambiguous. Especlallvuntil You are<br />
much more convincing ing In Your abllitr to dispose of the<br />
efense waste already hand, the processes that generate<br />
that waste should be brought to A halt!<br />
RECEIVED DOz RL<br />
7; 00 ?H Sante,i JWt221996oy,,<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
United States Senator Slade Gorton<br />
Testimony for the U.S. Department of Energy peblle Searing<br />
on the Defense Waste Environmental Impact Statement<br />
July 17,'1956<br />
I regret that I am enable to be here personally to comment<br />
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the pileposal of<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Wastes.. I have asked Dick Ellis, my Eastern<br />
Washington Director, to present this testimony on my behalf.<br />
Cleaning up 40 year. north of defense vas to at <strong>Hanford</strong> is<br />
one of the most im p ortant task. facing the Department of Energy.<br />
Making sure that the Department carrlee out this responsibility<br />
safely, effectively, and expeditiously is one of the most<br />
important' task. facing the State of Washington. 1 an pleased at<br />
the interest and involvement of Washington residents in this<br />
important issue.<br />
The overriding criteria for the diap ... I of <strong>Hanford</strong>'*<br />
defense cessta must be the protection of public health and our<br />
envic...nt. E.cent actions taken by the Department of Energy, Mele 1<br />
however, lead me to question the Department's c0mmittment to
.:y<br />
1W<br />
um<br />
It t I Itil'I L1-. sass . 1 1: HG: A . 1V I'll LIJII 1,1 1 OLLG 61 .^ 1 I J<br />
ILLV.U'I LI: LY'i : I: VL: •I: JI 1'N: 'Mlle, i 1040 1, 11 1 . .<br />
page 2<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL'<br />
JUL 221986<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
Page<br />
RECEIVE D DOER<br />
wuL221986 D!//<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
ti<br />
giving priority consideration to the protection of public health<br />
and our environment. on May 28th John Herrington, Secretary of<br />
Energy. announced that, if DOE has its way. further<br />
consideration of secondary repository site.. in the central and<br />
"'tern United States will be indefinitely postponed.<br />
It is particularly disturbing that the decision to<br />
Indefinitely postpone work on a second repository was based<br />
partially on.the Department of Energy assumption that defense<br />
waste in mingle-shell tanks at <strong>Hanford</strong> would not be placed in e<br />
repository.This implies that the Department of Energy has<br />
,3.3.6.7<br />
f .,.<br />
01<br />
O<br />
OO<br />
2 .1.O The Department's unilateral decision to e depend the second<br />
2 .2.14<br />
repodtocy siting program violate. both the intent and letter of<br />
the law. As a member of the Senate Environment and public Works<br />
Committee during 9 the 97th Con g rose, I was deeply 8y involved in<br />
developing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. I was<br />
responsible for including in the Act provisions that require the<br />
siting at A second repository and place A cap On the amount of<br />
waste disposed of in the first repository.. My intent ion was to<br />
ensure that the first repository site would not later become the<br />
already decided not to choose the option of disposing of<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong>' s existing defense Waste Ina repository. Under<br />
existing law, no more than 70,000 metric tons of high level<br />
..waste can be disposed of in the first repository. If <strong>Hanford</strong>'s<br />
existing defense wart. was added to commercial waste and other<br />
defense waste the combined total Weald exceed 80,000 metric<br />
tons. The Department'. ApParent opposition to building a ...Oud<br />
repository gives the impresion that the Department intends to<br />
leave <strong>Hanford</strong>'s defense waste where it 3s.<br />
i<br />
only repository in the nation.<br />
The Final Environmental Impact Statement must clarify this<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
The Department of Energy has neither the responsibility not<br />
the authority to decide whether or not to proceed with the<br />
:.lotion of A second repository.. As one of the Senators<br />
1.oOIv.d in dra Ring the Act., I can attest to the fact that the<br />
element. of the Act are I ... P ... his. : The airing of A second<br />
repository I. a key element that can not be removed without<br />
joupaxdizin g the entire Act. The Department of Energy must be<br />
requited to strictly comply with the law.<br />
issue and specifically address the impact of .inglo-shell tank<br />
waste disposal on the first repository. I am deeply concerned<br />
that the Department of Energy's illegal second repository<br />
decision will add pressure by the Department to statilize the<br />
single-swell tank ... to in place.<br />
Another issue of particular concern is that the Draft<br />
Environmental Impact Statement dose not adequately address the<br />
3.3.2.1<br />
13
e`4 ^ 3 fr8 ^^<br />
k 3<br />
xp<br />
U<br />
.,y1<br />
Ill ill<br />
1<br />
HUn IkLL1.W IkN 1Ya !-I'/-tlU: 9: J1 VN:<br />
[1111 bJ 1yv i '!-I'l-tlG: I:, P.;<br />
IM, .1 i 4.W.11 1 . O<br />
Page e<br />
RECL RL<br />
euL h 2 E186<br />
WM DIV10<br />
dll I<br />
page 5<br />
RECEIVED DOE•RL<br />
JUL 22 ISas<br />
ON4<br />
WM DIVISION -<br />
mac live quantities of chemical waste currently in the single-<br />
in the ongoing site selection process for high level was te<br />
shalltanke and contaminating. <strong>Hanford</strong> soil. This chemical<br />
repositories. I have cosponsored legislation to rectify this<br />
3.1.6 .1 contamination is a dangerous environmental and Health threat.<br />
The Department of energy must .take immediate action to identify<br />
serious oversight, and I caution the Department not to make the<br />
same error in considering defense waste disposal options. I<br />
3.4.2.23<br />
the hazardous chemicals at <strong>Hanford</strong> and ensure that each disposal<br />
join the citizens of Spokane and other communities on potential<br />
al ternative specificall y addresse o . chemical contamination.<br />
transportation corridors in urging the Department of Energy to<br />
carefully consider the transportation impacts of its defen se<br />
In addition, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement does<br />
past. motion.. In addition, it 10 . important that the Final<br />
3.4.2.24<br />
r<br />
fn<br />
N<br />
not indicate that the Department Of Energy intends to comply<br />
with the requirements and the intent of federal and state<br />
Environmental Impact Statement includes an explanation of the<br />
federal assistance which x111 be made available to. 10 0e1<br />
environmental laws. The Washington Department of Ecology<br />
emergency response providers.<br />
already has fined the Department of Energy for Han£Ord's non-<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
compliance with certain environmental law. The Department's<br />
non-compliance with these environmental laws can not be<br />
I strongly Support the Department of Energy's efforts to<br />
clean up <strong>Hanford</strong>. I will continue to work for adequate federal<br />
tolerated.<br />
TheDepnftment of Energy must demonstrate that its defen se<br />
waste actions can satisfy federal and State laws. in the Final<br />
funding to support the se efforts, including continuing work on a<br />
facility to process rather than bury the N-Seactor i z cadfoactive<br />
discharge, pumping radioactive liquid out of single-shell tanks p<br />
and researching and developing technologi es , such as the<br />
2.3.2.12<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
Environmental Impact Statement, the Department should indicate<br />
its intent to comply with all . appropriate federal and aLate laws<br />
to protect public health and the env ir onment.<br />
glaneffication facility, for immobilising nuclear waste.<br />
Another concern which deserves special note is the impact<br />
3.4.2.23 of the transportation of defense waste. In my view, the<br />
t<br />
Department has not adequately addressed transportation impacts
a-<br />
2110 NOISIAIO WM<br />
. 9961 99 ine<br />
l8- •,_•.;0321<br />
NOISIA10 MA<br />
^11^<br />
9961 ZZ lnP<br />
Css°'•.'<br />
'STTwiaoddv e}gi III ' em Teg • ITS • .SA gnegl<br />
'aeseauTB<br />
LyaaBVOO Fq p ... ug}sap s oid uo,..T.. ql q]y a .STldmoa<br />
•<br />
TaTzia I— saz sex w'.. 3o —,I ...<br />
eaReSx iea0. pUC ;ani Poop..<br />
d.TP Pw VISIT.g znTiaaT3a 30 .<br />
mwir^dmT ayi .. n^p.uS.... ua do I. pFpw saZx. wpaa0 zwaua5 - -<br />
^.'^7 •<br />
• E •a SITTSa}.m enopsaPaq P.a.% .v.m q I a. IT J.qx<br />
` E, 6Tn Sasaa .sae Pod. a<br />
' g aasex neap--. algm —111'- pue -I-XI z<br />
palOry TVem eq Uo IT q , ul<br />
p anolH anoga e q<br />
^] P-4--p ]wId uoAaaT3Ti]TA -I--M ay] 3v ivamaauanptl<br />
vea a9aloiaam}ivaam a q} vZ 'S<br />
'9<br />
godeal<br />
'aleen<br />
-Q<br />
aaaP^ aag Tq^®T o] .2..a ]vam]eazl I..A zeaPnu tl 'h<br />
a}aax<br />
P-Ti T...Ts SP *aoj ..q TJff<br />
aq aai- I.I. gasa 10Ta<br />
vo F ieg<br />
• eyue] I .......<br />
TITin pva g0saeaas a9a.moave of 1ep10 vL •G<br />
2.,. moz3 ajsee an.px ... q ;o SuTdmnd 'E<br />
•<br />
•SiTTluad rvaa]eaxl<br />
pT1ox aq} }nog8 Olj i^nposd eTq..T,.p<br />
i.Tlla w o] SSTluagV 'T<br />
g Z<br />
a ea ST... -Ri Ti e - o} a Tg T ... d aq .am<br />
a wTldmoa TeivammaTnva a]aldmoa o]uT P--l-Sy Svpg 'T<br />
iT '-OT"-np. pva qaj ea ees aeF.vaiia 4.1j, •y<br />
azv3o]azay P....Pp. AIa]enbap- 6 a<br />
'QOT%--T—W-.<br />
Z •.Z<br />
aaq IS. aneq iey] PI,ue I. eI..F.I dl ?,.So. ^] v,,2 aq uoquai]s<br />
Sa "IS. 8x p IIRp3H 30 .1aa3 aql aie}A-Te of I.S.<br />
pue 9-TP-1 ]ayi IS,... So, uo]io, io]ev.S 'ai¢F]uem SIT uI<br />
'SIT- dmnP zeaPnn IeuoT]eu e w Pin;neg IS uvTT Toou ay] i..I d ..<br />
• S.OTSSeq so ...u.1 .iTSna.e gHTq 4 Allamxv3 0] u.,.... a.IVISIBaq T.Pad. a 9-WSdoid vT iaupaeM y]oog T • T • Z<br />
o3 .TQT.god<br />
aova AOO PUe awtiq uea --I ... S SIT- P-<br />
pva '9.a1-x - T-[ aeq vo]I-O ioI..S<br />
I-VII-npvT P-S Te-TP-m 'ST=OA pva<br />
.1oa.UT eUTTosivoa •pool 9UTASaaald 10; -'ITT<br />
OId<br />
'paz TlT} n<br />
SI, moa; auAeynap bT .Iauaud<br />
aQ v.. IT xoq vo gosaa-aa aiomo.13<br />
So Tuamoasda, ay] go ewT]ae SIT<br />
8 Cj<br />
aJ..M m0 9<br />
puzogge P APTlp d nq aN saz8na0<br />
So ......dgsd en Try OSOTBe1 aq}<br />
Aq y]aog ]as ee ee zealanu I^ v^d,p ]uauad ema ayi I., ee oad<br />
So ejTJ ... q aqi aIomold of .,,,.d uOTI..IM<br />
u^T]aalae -ITS SqI 04 aiagpe o] PavymialOP eT uo]IV•3 aoiewaaa<br />
pue gvoTI.T., a Tlq.d aoT ... I.. Ua vo ind a1<br />
aoii}®oa aq] oI paaanTT-P aq ITT. AuomTi ea]<br />
"UOT}--RR-- HUTMO TT OJ -Al J-PTI-0 a g e. Td<br />
ua]iTAI.aa •1 apeiS I-i_n I-Is P.Im I. Slegaq uo ivwaie]a<br />
I-Tlq a -VoS-I AIISSTlodda STyi anay o] am I.I aov^y So eT II<br />
:—T-1 'Ili<br />
35£66 - q..M 'pvaTgOTB<br />
099 av8 •01d<br />
.31.m so •1d-u -s-n<br />
986T 'LT LW<br />
9961 '01 4T,, 1<br />
9£166 UGHejo '.p,...,<br />
'NOINOJ Sums Nod llo nxu NOSONIR M Steal 1 'SI a x3la AR<br />
SL£l xoe IN }.T..H<br />
®SN853Nd'AaNSN3 do . MLNtldda 3sd. d0 1N'3 s VlSatlAII 'Itlms g oNIANS Fdtlsa<br />
3Iwm 3SMIAHa agodHbM 9 w Nuum aCNIS aolms Hw ENOWIisaz WSHU<br />
%m 1' ; for<br />
6 '8 ' T 'E 9T-,NTPQ=TITS -pva9odosd3 Tivai egigiae aivna0 '£<br />
107s.a^ i vd -".r<br />
LO<br />
ITT<br />
t o-<br />
1/1
M<br />
-15<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUt22 OSS<br />
aiM<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
3426 RE 19th Ave.<br />
Portland, OR 97212<br />
Only 16, 1906<br />
Testimony far g ap ertment of Energy Public Hearing oa Nuclear<br />
Waste Management - .July 3, 1956, Richland Washington.<br />
Given by sell... Webster, 1235 I.... a, Walla Well., We.<br />
99362<br />
R.A. Holten/<strong>EIS</strong><br />
0.3. Department of Energy -<br />
Riehl= Operations<br />
PO. Dom 550<br />
Ricbland, WA 99352<br />
Dear Sir or Ms.:<br />
We wish to empress our strong objections to the location of the<br />
nuclear waste depository at <strong>Hanford</strong>, in Washington State. Its<br />
location So close to the Columbia River, a critical sou c of water<br />
re<br />
the unproven safety of the <strong>Site</strong> make it a dangerous end risky<br />
chute..<br />
We recognize that the nation needs to have a nuclear waste<br />
.depository somewhere, and that n0 one wants it in their 'backyard,'<br />
but there must certainly be locations that are less papal ate a, with<br />
more stable geology, and less risk to important sources ofwatee<br />
(Much as the Nevada site).<br />
Thank you for your consideration of thin letter.<br />
2 , 1 , 1 and recreation for both states (Washington and Oregon), as well as<br />
My name is Melissa Webster. I live in Walla Walla with my husband<br />
and two Children, The announcement that <strong>Hanford</strong> was recommended as a<br />
finalist for the nation's nuclear waste due, Checked and disappointed<br />
me. I had understood that the <strong>Hanford</strong> Bite was not favorable for<br />
untlerground radioactive wastes because the rock of this region is<br />
porous. I had under toad that the large population area in the basin and<br />
the proximity of the Columbia Fiver also made this area unsafe for this<br />
type of storage. What has Changed to cause this area to be considered<br />
no. far the great hot spot of the nation?<br />
Other questions which haunt me are:<br />
If we have so Much Waste already and have no safe way to defuse or<br />
dispose of it why do we continue to produce it? Weuldn't it be better<br />
to develop sof., far.. of an.,,?<br />
Why must one are. (or two) of the country be sacrificed in this by<br />
when nuclear waste is being produced at many sites?<br />
2,1.1<br />
2.5.6<br />
3.3.5.2<br />
W<br />
ly,<br />
./<br />
7<br />
0<br />
Ric rrdddRRRoveaa^ber<br />
Rochelle Rosevear,<br />
Why due. the 00E :think we will accept a Stud, which they have Made<br />
themselves and which Corse. their own interests?<br />
why do they tell u5 it can be safe when we know in our hearts it would<br />
not tie? Ine past record at <strong>Hanford</strong> and the disaster at Chernobyl justify<br />
our mistrust and fear.<br />
And finally, why does anyone or any agency or government think they<br />
have the ri ght to pollute the earth. in this mm.Meal and irreversible<br />
nner? In our careless use end abuse of nature In the name of pf.V..B<br />
we have came so far that We no longer see the magnitude OF what We are<br />
doing.<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.2.12<br />
I have a right to speak here today because I live close to the<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> area and I c. deeply about preserving the beauty and safety<br />
of this region. Cut I speak also for the protection of the entire<br />
country and I urge the department to see to the ending of nuclear<br />
waste production before; it provides far long term store,.. of present<br />
and future Waste.<br />
Thank you.<br />
ht ::_<br />
Melissa 2. Wabater JUL 22 DO<br />
y;Mi OIVISION
iii<br />
11G<br />
'<br />
fj<br />
-<br />
Aby<br />
TESTIMONY OF<br />
GOVERNOR BOOTH GRRONEk<br />
p tp^<br />
RErvE.._^ p - RL<br />
dUL 2 2 966 /atb<br />
V<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
- - RECEC,iEP DOERL<br />
JUL 22 Bffi<br />
eo[ b<br />
It ^g 1<br />
Governor Gardner tha t I express his regrets that' l XV g1.V qN<br />
net be hare personally requested to c ant an the Draft Environmental Impact<br />
6tatement on the Disposal of mHan{orC Defense High-level. trans.-<br />
antl Tank Wastes. He asked me to present his testimony. My<br />
. Curtis E.chels. - I am Governor Gardner a . special aael at ant<br />
on<br />
ergy i I Chair the stake of Washington Energy Facilit y'<br />
<strong>Site</strong> Eval uata on sCOUncilr and I am a member of the state of<br />
Washington Huai... Waste Board.<br />
Before I malt. Specific ...marts, I will take a few moments to list<br />
,an...I criteria the U.S. Department of Energy fU500E) should use 262.3<br />
to reach decisions. The number one criterion must be the protecdo<br />
of public health and the environment. To meet this all importank<br />
cri terienr USDOE .must<br />
- us . sl.t.-Of-th.-art t.chnol.gieS;<br />
In 3. 5 .`F<br />
STATE OF WASHINGTON<br />
In..<br />
19391 Aidin g Energy Age eexclust aand vingsintwthe the<br />
for<br />
sunshine or current federal legislation;<br />
USDOE PUBLIC HEARINGS -<br />
consider r}<br />
econom y but not allow a onomlcs to drive tleci- 9 ..2 . 3<br />
on<br />
DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
CURTIS ESCHELS<br />
SPECIAL ASSISTANT ON ENERGY ISSUES<br />
0.1, 8. 1986<br />
- minimize future releamesl and 1.5.6<br />
- make s. nce, not politics, prevail in the decision 2.2.1<br />
..Ling Pro. cess<br />
The cleanup f. this 4u ..... .4 of wastes is a maJ pr.'<br />
long term challenge for USDOE antl the t to of Washington. This<br />
Draft <strong>EIS</strong> is the beginning of a long, difficult, and e:penslve<br />
task...<br />
I am plc setl that kM1e ci[a zens t rpgaon have become so knowlr<br />
the antl skate .f<br />
Wa<br />
t this ie u credit<br />
Washington<br />
Washngton 1 i tensprograms fFat<br />
or providing . information to the<br />
cikiz 2.3.2.8<br />
] hope thhee o6 pro will<br />
continue even<br />
kM1bugF n the Draft EIE commirit ent pprinb willr ' eon .. and. c<br />
The followin g specific comments A,S made in the spirit ofmpro ng<br />
this draft impact statement. ih'. three volume. 1 , 00u page d.aui<br />
art is. foc the most part. cl..Ily written and t. ghblcally s .no.<br />
H.w to<br />
complete<br />
ie to f" ) d t<br />
tl tl t USDOE<br />
must a orporate the follow fig z<br />
^hemicai Hazard-<br />
The scope of the D<strong>EIS</strong> is tooThe document does not ads-<br />
. ...taly deal with the hundred. ofoenouaands of tons of chemical<br />
wastes included in tank wastes and dispersed in <strong>Hanford</strong> sells. The 3.1.6.1<br />
hazards of chemical contaminationno less real and urgent then
e<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 22 1986 t0lb<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
EM<br />
JUL 221986 B01b<br />
3.5.1.57<br />
2.4.1.1<br />
2.4.1.17<br />
2.5.7<br />
thehatard. of radioactive materials. USDOE must i entorP"IVISION<br />
chemi.[a1. contamination and each di svosal alternative must<br />
specifically address chemical contamination.<br />
Sour=<br />
The Draft <strong>EIS</strong> appears to make o v erly optimistic performance assumeents<br />
for soil barriers. The validity of the DID i. in j .... rdyif<br />
the a ailable Iitarat are has been misrepresented, Barrier performancemust<br />
v be substantioted by Previousstudies and . actual exper -<br />
F'athway antl travel time cal cul ati gns are mean ngl ass until<br />
N.-: or by is substantiated.'<br />
Comoli ante With 5a f e_^Lyp yr g<br />
We Are enod that the USDOE emphasis o stab ilizatio. n o{ tanks<br />
1. contrary to the Nuclear Waste Policy Pct multiple barrier"<br />
approach which regwres stabilization of bath the container and the<br />
USDOE .... h leads to<br />
[<br />
of s<strong>Hanford</strong> groundwater. Contamination 04cgroundwater is contrary n<br />
to I state Iaw. In the final <strong>EIS</strong>, USDOE should .0,.a to comply with<br />
a3 appropriate state laws to protect public health and the environment.<br />
Comp l iance Wi[h the National Env ironmental Policy Act<br />
In the final impact statement. PEEPS net specifically identify the<br />
,.pacts n4 "the" proposal as required by the National Env, run ... tel<br />
Policy Act. The u of "boundinq assumptions" to cover a range of<br />
impacts o 'a It atrves is net acceptable. Delayed records o4<br />
decision will require, as<br />
, supplemental <strong>EIS</strong> with an<br />
opportunity for citizen comment. mu<br />
The draft document calls for a system to mark the boundary of the<br />
actual disposal sites. ISSUE describes what It calls "actual disposal<br />
sites" which would cover 32 square miles. In or opinion,<br />
not all the 32 square miles .must be off limits 4Prever.. Only that<br />
land that is irretrievably contaminated by dangerous wastes should<br />
be written off. 'USDOE must establish a Separate, public pr ... as to<br />
condemn land prior to writing it off.<br />
Ef{act an Other Degisions WM DIVISION<br />
Health and safety ismue, must be the mclor factor in the cleanup of<br />
defense wastes and indecision% leading to the selection of a site<br />
for Beol odic disposal of high-level waetes. Fla. .11 indi c.tigna r<br />
the decision to indefinitely postpone work on a second repository<br />
was based, in part, on USDOE data which assumed single shell waetes<br />
ou Id not go toa repe.i[ary. 1 4 the decision was influenced by<br />
such an sumpti on, there will a re ly be added pressure by USDOE to<br />
stabilize the single-shell tank Wastes in place. In addition, the<br />
e of such data to make a decision on the second round repoaitory<br />
raises serious questions about the validity of the geologic repository<br />
alternative for single-ahell wastes. The spirit and intent of<br />
the National Environmental Policy Pct requires consideration of<br />
valid alternatives. The final <strong>EIS</strong> must clear up this confusion and<br />
.,,at clearly D0r... the impact of single-oh.11 Wastes on the<br />
design and construction of a reposltory--wherever it is built. The<br />
final document must include specific information an the number of<br />
canisters of glassified waste USDOE expects to extract from singleshell<br />
tanks.<br />
Cone ii I iDO i<br />
In c nclusion, I support strongly USDOE's efforts tom veaheatl o<br />
kev elements of the <strong>Hanford</strong> clea This includes ontld nine<br />
research and preliminary design work: an the glassificat ion and<br />
grot facilities. The state of Washington will work to forge a.<br />
coalition to support cleanup funding,<br />
The Washington State Nuclear Waste board will testify At the<br />
Seattle meeting and the board will submit detailed comments on or<br />
bebore the August 9 deadline.<br />
Governor Gardner and I thank you for this opportunity to comment<br />
2.2.3<br />
3.3„2.1<br />
2.1.7<br />
3.;3.5.3<br />
ability[o Monitor<br />
2.1.7<br />
USOOE must, in the final <strong>EIS</strong>, evaluate the : impact of defense wastes<br />
on the atiility to monitor a proposed repository. This monitoring<br />
especially important in the earlier postclosure years. It is<br />
obvious that even con sideration of a repository requires the bast<br />
po.si his cl..... .4: defense ...i.e. -
All<br />
ill;<br />
11'7<br />
To: Department of Energy, <strong>Hanford</strong> Waste <strong>Site</strong> Hearing, July 8, 1986<br />
Subject: Production and atorago of nuclear materials<br />
Prom: Gretchen de Grasse, 137 Whitman St., Walla Walla, 99362<br />
Given the contempt of the Reagan administration for the<br />
United Nations and the World Court , and the contempt of the world<br />
for the Reagan administration; is is reasonable to doubt th e control<br />
of nuclear weapons by the United States or others like us.<br />
N<br />
U'1<br />
[T<br />
2.1.1<br />
2.5.6<br />
The Department of Energy and the Reagan administration have<br />
been cavalier in their treatment of the public and its elected<br />
Given the events at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, it is<br />
reasonable to doubt the safety of the N-reactor<br />
representatives. On Monday, July 7th, Congressman Sid Morrison said Given the duplicity of the Department of Energy about<br />
that a Washington State lawsuit and congressional legislation will emissions at the <strong>Hanford</strong> site, it is doubtful whether "Grandma's 2.5.5<br />
probably fail to take the <strong>Hanford</strong> nuclear reservation off the list Cookies" should be stored there.<br />
of three contenders for. the nation's first high level nuclear waste<br />
repository. If a lawsuit brought by the state of Washington and<br />
Reasonable doubt means that the re is debate an at least<br />
congressional legislation are demand to failure, then what is th e<br />
two aides. A superior, we know best, attitude taken by the Departpurpose<br />
of this hearing?. A cartoon in last week's New Yorker (JUne30th) Out of Energy and President Reagan is inappropriate and unhelpful.<br />
expresses . the contempt of agencies like the Department of Energy and<br />
I beg the Department of Energy not to risk human life and our<br />
the Pentagon for the public: One general to another in a closed<br />
enclecament over debatable. issues. The generation of nuclear waste<br />
meeting says "No, no. When I say this new secret weapon can slip past<br />
should cease until the debate is resolved.<br />
their defenses undetected, I;m not referring to the Russians, I'm<br />
referring to Congress." It is wrong that the public moat beg for<br />
mercy before a governmental agency that has no legislative or judicial<br />
authority.<br />
Safe public policy requires that no new nuclear wastes<br />
should be generated until a safe storage and monitoring system<br />
is created. The N-reactor, which produces weapons grade plutonium,<br />
should be shut down immediately on general principles. We already<br />
manufacture and sell too many weapons.. During the fiscal year 1985,<br />
the United States sold more than 11 billion dollars worth of weapons<br />
to 115 countries an a government to government basis. During the<br />
same period, under the Am. Export Control Act, the United States<br />
sold over t billion dollars worth of weapons in private sales to 167<br />
countries. Some of the countries are not friendly to each other, o<br />
to us. It would be safer to send cherry bombs in diplomatic pouche s.<br />
than to continue making weapons grade plutonium for defense or sale.<br />
RECEPrw CQE-Ri<br />
-.. .. _<br />
Rt:I.CIJLU LJ^RL<br />
1UL221986 g9.<br />
WMDIVISION 0lt7<br />
JUL 22M6 6117<br />
WM DIVISION
LM<br />
.<br />
.<br />
Hl<br />
V continue to cause.<br />
nur./ea- was/u and any GiAar d—swe.. /,°-/a,t lve. -Ja<br />
This<br />
YfiC SO'{' 0,4 L3e(PcrL °/ _)V,e -/n /.zr /!"/a guaranty of safey sounds familiar. In the February 1906 issue<br />
vid<br />
Of 7/,e Nar rW/ e, Of Soviet Life magazine, Ukranian Power Minister Vitulli Sukorov said<br />
_17<br />
that "There was one chance in 10,000 years of a meltdown." As we all know,<br />
two months Dater Chernobyl blew. The N-Reactoq. like Chernobyl has no<br />
G1 14ud.., t. ParferJOn<br />
dome and has a graphite-moderated core and is being called less Safe than<br />
119<br />
70 bee _ N nA'd 2 W kJ<br />
^q , T /y ^, /96G<br />
Department of Energy Hearing -.July 8, 1986 RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
-73, /s f,,o /e e{' J6 ' Wa,77w .-/- /.vw e, .fin cs ,^. -/a rerp=,.$ Environment Impact Statement JUL 2 2 686 6(l9<br />
'e Y/+e<br />
,land"" Awict Z.jope
t e<br />
119<br />
1Z0<br />
Page 2<br />
thing in a town that doesn't exist anymore.<br />
The Impact statement gives a population report of the people in an<br />
80-mile radius of <strong>Hanford</strong>. This is the danger distance from Chernobyl to<br />
Kiev or <strong>Hanford</strong> to Walla Walla where<br />
I live. 11 points out that we are<br />
a low-population area, therefore eligible for risk. Low-population is<br />
not No-population. The inclusion of this low-population report in<br />
the same report stating a "presumed zero risk to public" of nuclear<br />
wastes Is a contradiction in the report of itself.<br />
The young people of the Northwest ask for safety for our future.<br />
2 .2.1 The existing and future nuclear wastes must be neutr;Hzed.<br />
The N-Reactor so like Chernobyl must close.<br />
2 .5.6 Please avoid a mass exodus of people from the Northwest. We love<br />
this area and wish to stay and raise our families here.<br />
1--t<br />
Ln Lisa Lyon.<br />
CO<br />
jU7 6 rd-/9kd^,<br />
C&,qz LLl vx?, Gz<br />
f =-IVED DOE-RL<br />
DOE Richland Operations Office JUL 221936 O1a06 liJmy 1986<br />
ATTN k A. HOIWn/<strong>EIS</strong><br />
Waste Management Division WM DIviSON pl/3<br />
Richland, WA 99352<br />
1 am wri ting W express my opinion concerning the DOE s draft Environmental<br />
Impact S ta tement en titl ed' Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense H1911-Level, Transuranic,<br />
and Tank Wastes and Mash tc raise the following points:<br />
1! THE DEPT. OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SHOULD RE REQUIRED TO<br />
MEET AT LEAST THE M1141MUM SAFETY STANDARDS REQUIRED OF COMMERCIAL<br />
REACTORS, BOTH FOR THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND THE DISPOSAL<br />
OF NUCLEAR WASTES. I believe it is the responsibility of the United S ta res Federal<br />
Government to protect its citizens Irom internal as well as external threats to their<br />
health and well being. !therefore
a,1i 5<br />
q.d<br />
120 nu<br />
3.5.5.28<br />
3.3.2.1<br />
3.3.2.1<br />
3.5.5,14<br />
2.3.2.5<br />
2.3.2.9<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 221996 b17pA<br />
WMDIVISION p2/ 3<br />
3) ARE RADIOACTIVE DAUGHTER ISOTOPES INCLUDED III TABLES IS 2? Tables 1<br />
&2 ip. L i 1& 12) are difficult to unders'and. For instance. Americium-241 is a<br />
radioactive decay product of Plutomum-239240, and yet it is not shown to<br />
increase as Plutomum Decays Were radioactive decay products computed into<br />
Table 2. or does trolly depict the mitial quari of radioactive isotopes? If not<br />
included already, please recompute to accurately reflect no total quantities of<br />
Isotopes.<br />
4) OPTIONS 2 & 3 ARE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL AND DOTN ARE UNACCEPTABLE.<br />
The reference option (cption 3) is only a different name for onsite etabillzaGOq<br />
(option 2). If one look_ at the numbers, it is clear from the reference (obtain 3)<br />
(bat the DOE plans to dispose of all pre-1 070 waste (Which is vu Molly all of the<br />
present defense wastcl and even some of the post 1970 wasw by m-place<br />
stabilization (option 2)<br />
a) Wit of the plutonium generated and extracted by the defense department<br />
Was done between 7):; and 1972, No enaction NRS done between 1972 and<br />
19h;, The reference octlon plan. to Stabilize in place all waSW generated prior be<br />
.1970, and much of what has been generated since then (see p. B.24). Therefore,<br />
option 3 is just a fancy name for o'Mi0h 2: 09th more than 90% of the total defense<br />
waste being stabilized in place, as outlined in option 2. Therefore, back options 2 &<br />
3 are totally unsuitable.<br />
5) WHY ARE THERE NO CONFIDENCE iNTERVALS FOR ESTIMATES? One cannot<br />
foresee even the nee; future with 100% certainty, and predicting events 10,000<br />
years into the future is even more difficult Why then d: Lee <strong>EIS</strong>. tables lack<br />
confidence inter vas or. the estimates? For instance, on p, an of Vol. I It is stated<br />
that Downstream users of the Columbia River would mcur at moat one health effect<br />
associated with the disposal of ctasto over the 10,000 years This is only one<br />
example of the consistent lack of confidence intervals for estimates. It is<br />
impossible to evaluate the data Dresentted without soma idea of the uncertainties<br />
Involved- 95%certain(•.' levels should be DrSSented for all tables representing<br />
eslintatei c" at a:c D.- jmei tanntie'a invclved in Four flea:[!: rmpa(t estimates?<br />
How were these Eserm:ned^.<br />
6i AN INDEPENDENT STUDY AND INDEPENDENT <strong>EIS</strong> IS IMPERATIVE BEFORE ANY<br />
DECIMNS BE MADE CONCERNING NUCLEAR WASTE DI SPOSAL. It violates standard<br />
scientific practices to have the agency responsible for the generation of the nuclear<br />
ar sm also responsible for evaluating the health and environmental impacts of<br />
nuclear waste generation and storage. It is impossible to evaluate the scientific<br />
data presented without independent input and review. It is imperative that an<br />
independent agency be charged with data collection, analysis, outline of options<br />
and production of the <strong>EIS</strong><br />
RECEIVED D0E RL<br />
JUL22M 012fip<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
Is 3/3<br />
7) NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN UNTIL LESS HAZARDOUS TECHNIQUES ARE<br />
DEVELOPED FOE THE RETRIEVAL, PROCESSING, AND STORAGE OF THE PRE-1970<br />
DEFENSE WASTES. It it clear from the Wordme throughout the <strong>EIS</strong> that the DOE<br />
does not yet have techniques for the safe ret r ieval and disposal of the pre-1970<br />
defense wastes (see p. L8, 1.17 for examples(. Therefore, no action should be 335.4 3.3.5.4<br />
taken until technologies can be developed for the safe retrlev il,processing and<br />
storage of this wastes. It is unconscionable W literally sweep tills waste under a<br />
rug of concrete and leave future generations with the task of cleaning it up should<br />
the DOE predictions of environmental impact prove in the future to be too<br />
Optimistic
N<br />
O<br />
2.3,2.9.<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.2.13<br />
2.5.5<br />
DOE Richland Operations Office<br />
ATTN R.A. HOlten/E1S<br />
Waste Management Division<br />
Richland, WA 99352<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 22186 Q121 /~<br />
WMDIViSIONp.1/4<br />
l2, .121<br />
6 July 1986<br />
I am writing to express my opinion Concerning the DOE a draft Environmental<br />
impact Statement entitled 'Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Derense Hfgn-Level, Transuranic,<br />
and Tank. Wastes (<strong>EIS</strong>), and "all raise Lee following points:<br />
1) AN INDEPENDENT STUDY AND <strong>EIS</strong> IS NECESSARY. To respond to all the<br />
obleccons 1 have to the aiternaGves outlined in Me DOE. <strong>EIS</strong> would take more<br />
space tnan the <strong>EIS</strong>. Suffice it to say that! Cannot accept any data, probabilities, or<br />
conclusions presented in the <strong>EIS</strong>, since the <strong>EIS</strong> is researched and written by Lie<br />
same department wniclt has generated, carelessly stored, and must now try W<br />
clean up and dispose of the wastes. 1 believe pat no action should be taken on<br />
disposal of defense nuclear waste, until an INDEPENDENT agency can both examine<br />
the original data. critique the DOES <strong>EIS</strong>. erxiore other retrieval and disposal options<br />
and make recommendations as to hew the defense waste should be retrieved and<br />
- disposed It is unconscionable that there has been no independent study on wastes<br />
as hazardous and long-lived as the defense nuclear wastts.<br />
a) This nation was built on the ideal of Separation of powers: separation of Church<br />
and state, and separation of judicial; legislative, and executive bodies of<br />
government. How then can this same nation set one department, the DOE, with the<br />
Sisk of goner ttmg, monitoring, staring, and ultimately disposing of its own<br />
hazardous materials, This is clearly a conflict of interest. No matter hew noble the<br />
purpose and how Strong the desire for obie
3.3.5.4<br />
3.3.4.2<br />
2.5.6<br />
121<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
duL 22 1986<br />
d(ZI<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
P.,3(4<br />
4) NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAXEN UNTIL SAFE TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE RETRIEVAL,<br />
PROCESSING; AND RETRIEVABLE STORAGE OF THE PRE-1970 DEFENSE WASTE ARE<br />
DEVELOPED. The defense department created this waste, and sho uld be held<br />
responsible for disposing of ALL its wastes in the same manner as that required of<br />
commercial nuclear reactors. It is clear that the DOE does not yet have the<br />
exper ti se to do this safely (see p. 1.8 & 1.17).<br />
a) Therefo r e, no ac ti on should be taken on the long-term disposal of the defense<br />
wastes until technologies can be developed to re tr ieve and package the pre-1970<br />
waste in a manner suitable for deep geologic disposal, and should be retrievably<br />
stored for at least 50 years.<br />
b) Because the DOE cannot yet safely s tore me nuclear waste genera ted by<br />
Plutonium ezva-UOn, the N-Reactor and PUREX plant should be shut down and no<br />
new waste genera tod until such ti me as technologies for the packaging and<br />
disposing of me waste In the same manner as for commercial nuclear waste are<br />
developed.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
dUL 221986 Gtzl<br />
WM DIVISION PAM<br />
e) 1 know the BOB would li ke to argue Nat this IS9ue Is not relevant to me defense<br />
waste <strong>EIS</strong>, but I believe me two issues are inseparable. By set ting the precedent of<br />
'm-place stabiliza tion' for the defense waste, they are pav in g the way to ex tract<br />
Plutonium from the spent commercial fuel at <strong>Hanford</strong>, thereby turning the more<br />
easily disposed of commercial waste into the same high-volume liq uid, sludge, and<br />
solid waste that the defense department cannot yet dispose of safely. If it can<br />
sweep 40 ye ar s accumulation of defense waste under a rug of con crete, as options<br />
2 & 3 intend to do, it can just as easily sweep a ll the commer ci al waste under the<br />
same rug after it has been reprocessed to remove the plutonium and uranium,<br />
Whether for warheads or breeder fuel.<br />
--It is therefore imperative that commercial nuclear eastte not be s tored at<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong>, and that defense waste be subje ct to the seine disposal prac tices as are<br />
curren tl y requ ired for spent commercial fuel.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
121<br />
2.1.3,<br />
3.3.2'.1<br />
2.1.1<br />
2.2.7<br />
5) HANFORD:S INAPPROPRIATE AS WELL AS UNSUITABLE FOR STORAGE OF BOTH C.S. Weiler<br />
DEFENSE AND COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR WASTE Because plutonium iscurrentlya 224 N. Bellevue Ave.<br />
2.13 . i•asto product of the commercial industry and the desired end product of the<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
b+ defense department. commercial fuel should under no circumstances be s tored at a<br />
C71<br />
defense faci li ty. THEREFORE. HANFORD SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM<br />
•''<br />
CONSIDERATION AS A REPOSITORY SITE FOR SPENT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR FUEL!<br />
To s to re the commercial waste at <strong>Hanford</strong> is yet another viola ti on of the separa ti on<br />
C: peWel'$ Jn WhIt11 tills na JJn pfldee !iB21f It also violates our 40 -year policy of<br />
separa ting Me peaceful and destruc ti ve uses of me atom and Is an open Invita ti on<br />
to other na ti ons to make weapons out of their commercial fue l .<br />
a i No government will believe we do not use spent commercial fuel for warheads<br />
"'hen a-^s rich pmtonmm resource is located in the middle of a defense fa cility,<br />
2.1. 3 J ev.n If wt 11 11 not use it for warheads' There are sufficient non-defense sites<br />
37all3bie if ne ticr. that th ere is no need t9 locate commercial waa to at the only<br />
defense faci lity in the en ti re na ti on that is reprocess ing spent fuel for warheads<br />
(unless the g5*efo:nent. mteu-9 5 to do so). The fact that th e DOE elevated <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
from a low posi tion on Me list of available sites, passing over more suitable sites<br />
based on safety, supper Ls the no ti on that <strong>Hanford</strong> is being chosen as a commercial<br />
pluWmum-extrac tion site (either for bombs or breeder fue l) rather man a<br />
,cmmercial N2ste s torage site<br />
b) What assurance call the DOE give the American ci tizens and me rest of the<br />
world that spent commercial fuel vnll not be processed in to plutonium for<br />
2. 211.3 Wa:heads is the commercial waste is s to red at <strong>Hanford</strong>? I realize that there is<br />
legislation to prevent th is, but congress co uld change me legisla tion, and<br />
'<br />
ever: 11 It does not. the DOE could pla ce a blanket of 'National Security' over the site<br />
a.i reprocess the spent commercial fuel wi thout permission. How can this be<br />
prevented it the commer ci a l waste is located on a defense site?
1212 122<br />
Sonia Trapani. 1405 School Avenue, File. Walla Walla, Wash inginn 993u1<br />
3<br />
3<br />
1 alb a mother and a homemaker and I speak far the families ad future<br />
families of the Northwest. The people of the Northwest are being selectoo<br />
by the D.O.E. to be a National Sacrifice Area. The resident s xa. ders to<br />
face the dreadful reality o£ the double nuclear peril are frightened.<br />
The double peril is 1) the thusfar irresolvable nuclearwaste problem and<br />
2) the Chernobyl-like <strong>Hanford</strong> N Neactoo xh ch is loch tied on the Columbia<br />
River.<br />
T he DOES environmental impact statement has tour unacceptable options<br />
and are a-pretense. at having a. permanent solution to the nuclear waste<br />
P roblem.<br />
Here are the four options given<br />
1 .1 1) Deep geological disposal means digging down 9 0 0m to bury the<br />
J e1 1<br />
retrievable waste . in barrels. Pass lag thrmgb oa, ater supply Involve , .<br />
the risk of accidental contamination. Thera is also no known substance<br />
I-a for barrels that can permanently hol d the histly corrosive Toxic waste. It<br />
i s dishonest to presume that these containe rs will not soon leak and<br />
ultlmataly totally corrode. The current barrels in use s e 1970 if.<br />
rabbi mull, leaking. In fact, that Is why double-Inner barrels are now<br />
used which face the same dilemma.<br />
2) In-p1aC s i a bl lizatio n_ - . What a joke! No ans currently knows<br />
how to "Stabilize transuraniswastes'. All of the waste prior to 19 7 0<br />
.as due ll ed into unlined its to soak into our porous ble.1tic sell. This<br />
3.3.2.1 so-called non-retrievable waste' presents a grave danger to The peopl e .<br />
of the N.H., the groundwater and the 1,21 1 mile-long r I cambia River. it<br />
Is a pretense for you to put a barrier of .concrete it and call Hsg<br />
it 'stab liied". These wastes just be retrieved and neutralized. Until<br />
You can do that, you do not have a permanent storage solution.<br />
3 .3.3.1 3) A combination<br />
g of above two -- two r ngs dealt make right!<br />
3.3.4 .1 4) Leino av -- i3 The liousokeepIa, of the DOE has been so, Ii Ali, l<br />
a c o py .<br />
Hazardous wastes have been rare less ly and larpo re ri I .^tered<br />
u<br />
-<br />
JUL 221986 61'fi.<br />
-.ahead Its and now one of our opt io ns is to leave it as 11 is. we<br />
are not talking about spilled milk, but we era talking about the greatest<br />
hazard man has aver created.<br />
The most disturbing aspect of lhuf impact statement Is 'het<br />
west is being used as a scapegoat. The DOE is warming us up to becoming<br />
the National dumpsite. If you take a map of the United States and visual-<br />
2. 1. 1<br />
ize It as YOUR home In Washington D.C., imagine that you have the most vile,<br />
obnoa lo p s rubbish to dispose of that nobody else wants. Where would you<br />
nut it? ... in the furthest corner of your prope rt y .... in fact that Is<br />
exactly what pies do!<br />
We in the Northwest deserve as much protection as more populated<br />
areas in the country. We should not have to c rry a disproportionate r ilk<br />
or Federal operations. The impact statement lies and<br />
all there Is zero<br />
health risk to the public in all four options. What prospective scientist<br />
mould pass his thesis in school if he<br />
tile<br />
princi p led as you did in the impact<br />
statement -- "p_s_ d thril l, risk zee. . In fact, no one in t hi s c .airy<br />
ex ce pt the DOE believes that since no one else in the country wants a<br />
..umps il'e. A Senator said, there is the NIMIIY syndrone all over -- Not<br />
In My Back Yard!<br />
would<br />
(resident Re-agan h m e f o= ured the p..pi. of the Ens: the' they<br />
have<br />
n el. dumpsite Obviously, he is aware of t ile . danger to<br />
'hem. Iron sly, they have a more suitable granite rock sell. The<br />
g rtbwcst as e',idabge .d habitat! The Chernobyl'type N Reactor at<br />
fmnfbrd must close. The s alleei n retr ewnI,I, v must he ret r icl.<br />
antl neutralized.. Impossible? Then you MOST NOT process more plutonium.<br />
There already has been enough prodaaAd to !ltt y the. whole ea rt h.<br />
Until nue.lear waste can he lout p =a that 1 '1' c an safely be in the<br />
backyard of Washington CC, Los Angeles ?nd New York, the Northeast CANNOT<br />
Ie. !felt to become a Nat'ewl sa rir--e-Area RECEI'Jei: DO[.RL<br />
JUL 22 1986<br />
Olai<br />
[ ^s<br />
2. J .`v
d ! d a 5 6<br />
9_ :^v`s<br />
Im<br />
F_m<br />
FY "'L `^ A ^a..i<br />
^Uof ^cI l .o.( 1^ALl(<br />
-<br />
a<br />
4—<br />
G<br />
a<br />
LAJgII,g4Iyya<br />
MY NAME IS FRANCIS J.TRAPANI. I RESIDE IN WALLA rL'^A. VI<br />
AM A PRACTICING CHIRDPRACTOR, AS WELL AS A PROFESSOR OF<br />
CLINICAL 14UTRITION AE WESTERN STATES COLLEGE IN PORTLAND,<br />
OREGON, O11 THEIR POST GRADUATE FACULTY.<br />
I SPEAK NEITHER AS A GEOLOGIGTOOR A NUCLEAR PHYSICIST, BUT<br />
AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THOSE WHO CANNOT BE HENE AT THIS TIME<br />
.... THOSE PEOPLE WD COULD OCCUPY THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOR THE<br />
NEXT 10,000 YEARS,<br />
14ADE 8,000 YEARS AGO. WRITING WAS INVENTED AND FIRST USED 5,000,<br />
YEARS AGO. THE WHEEL GAS FIRST USED 5,000 YEARS AGO. CHAT IF<br />
MESOLITHIC RAN, THROUGH NONE ¢WINK, HAD DEVISED A PUTRID TOXIN<br />
WITH A "HALF-LIFE" OF 10,000 YEARS? WHAT IF THAT TOXIN HAS<br />
WZ<br />
POLLUTING WORLD NOW? CHAT COULD WE THINK OF THEN?.<br />
WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO PRODUCE A SUBSTANCE SO TOXIC, SO<br />
DEADLY, SO LONG-LASTING, THAT IT COULD AFFECT OUR SIOSPHERE FOR<br />
A H014DRED YEARS . LET ALONE 10,0001111<br />
Ol<br />
GJ<br />
4J<br />
1=<br />
a<br />
0<br />
O<br />
U<br />
C<br />
VIE AGE TOLD THAT PLUTONIUII, PRODUCED IN THESE NUCLEAR<br />
REACTORS, ONLY 03L OF THE MANY BI-PRODUCTS, WILL GIVE OFF<br />
RADIATION FOR 250,000 YEARS, 095 THAT'S IT'S HALF LIFE .....<br />
THE TINE NECESSARY FOR IT TO DECAY TO 1/2 ITS ORIGINAL<br />
CONCENTRATION IS 24,600 YEARS.<br />
BUT, YOU SAY YOU HAVE DAYS OF HANDLING IT. HEALLY?? THERE<br />
CAN BE ONLY TUO EKPLAINATIOHS FOR THE FOUR CHOICES YOU OFFER IN<br />
YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT STATEMENTS<br />
111 YOU EXPECT TH E' PUBLIC TO BE STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE IT. Z . 5. 5<br />
iwur<br />
121 YOU AO E. SW PEN Ef:O UGH TO BELIEVE IT YOURSE LFS.<br />
THESE FIGURES STAGGED MY IMAGINATION AS I'It SURE THEY HAVE<br />
STAGGERED THE IIIAGINATOIIS OF THOSE 11X0 CAME UP NITH THE FIGURE<br />
OF 1N,ODO YEARS AS THE HALF-LIFE OF THE HASTE THAT IS EXPECTED TO<br />
BY BURPED AT ANY NUCLEAR REPOSITORY.<br />
SURELY, IF YOUR CDNTAIIIEBG ARE LEAKING ALREADY, IN. LESS<br />
THAN 30. YEARS, DO YOU . REALLY BELIEVE THAT DOUBLE CONTAINERS HILL 3.1.4.9<br />
LAST FOR 10,000 YEARS?<br />
ALTHOUGH I'N SURE TVAT THE FIGURE OF 10,000 YEAR HALF-LIFE<br />
I6 A PROFOUNDLY INACCURATE ESTIIIATE, I WOULD LIKE To GIVE A<br />
CONCEPT. BE JUST ROY! LONG 10,000 YEARS REALLY xS.<br />
IF 11E LOOK BACK IN TINE. lIE60LITH2C MAN WAS HUNTING 1'IITH<br />
FLINT-TIPPED SPEARS 10,000 YEARS AGO. THE FIRST POTTERY HAS<br />
KC::3 "tr - 1 _iL<br />
IF THE RADIOACTIVE -MATERIAL ALREADY BEING FOUND III THE<br />
COLUNBIA RIVER SILT I5 EVEN RON A POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD, 00 3.5.4.4<br />
YOUP HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THE COLUIIGIA RIVER AREA WILL BE<br />
HABITABLE BY THE YEAR 2500 ..... OR HOW ABOUT IN 10,000 TEARS<br />
USED THE REST OF THE FILTH FINDS. ITS LAY INTO THE PFK LAYER<br />
AND INTO . THE GIVER?<br />
RErE '- L' DWRL<br />
JUL 22 10 iS I Z.5 -<br />
JUL22 1W p12 5 - WMDfY14ON<br />
\51A2O:VISION
i t<br />
123 12 ^<br />
Shirley Hagman<br />
123 East Maple, Waffle Walla<br />
1 /0/ 86 Nuclear Waste Hearing<br />
R72<br />
1--•<br />
'P<br />
-<br />
OBVIOUSLY, THOBE PUSH114C FOR THE USE OF THE NORTHVIEST AS<br />
THE RATIONS NUCLEAR DUMP BITE, ARE GOING BO TO KEEP IT OUT OF<br />
My memo Ss Shirley Segmesand I live in Wa12a Walla. I have here In<br />
4 tad a petition Signed by a maser Of people front Walla Walla and<br />
a few from outlylag area. much as Mlltoe-yr.emter Cr.ge..<br />
THEIR Wllg BACKYARDS[ Oh. petition leads as follow, ^I strongly obleat to the possibility of Bamford,<br />
being Moses ad the lomtlon for a i for the ane • s highh--level<br />
vae lt s el Tho r. is mo ay, deLerss o<br />
that<br />
p this senate nna be<br />
Safely a t.r tla fatfor 10.000 years. Th e , or IDEllty of aata.a<br />
ited 2 WE O<br />
2:1,<br />
p ll'T. DART IT IN OUR BACKYARD p NYMpg E THE PRES ID ENT<br />
1<br />
gimhe *itiof<br />
g into the do se en voi Se Of pa raata<br />
to the el Li Deene s or of aa<br />
gEAGAl1 WANTS IT NEAR WASHINGTON. NGTON, O.L. OR HIS RANCH<br />
e and d Or Ofe h Why . Mould th e into of<br />
IN<br />
garbage<br />
ahiv gton be the rba ge disposal or hi<br />
dl.poesl f<br />
^[<br />
W or highly d esgerOWS ante 110.<br />
.<br />
2 . 1 .1<br />
tii^ep aunimetryTno KO^r ^. 3 . PAlfl;u T'T NA T ;I!*<br />
1 CALIFORNIA. OUR LIVES ARE NO LESS SACRED THAN ANY OTHERS. NOR ft.<br />
The impact staremen+ 5<br />
n"sue<br />
The responses to thi s petition as darMdleln,I of all the people<br />
DO I WISH THIS RaffuNE 1 FILTH ON ANYONE.<br />
I apprea.Md, there were only a handful Mo dsallaad to S1gS. The usual<br />
response ne. sovethlag like thie— •Sou bat .I w1113 e -<br />
Mr. insert ions .(Mike Eaerevse) on es Still that the opinions of too publls<br />
THERE Z6 p FIFTH ALTERNATIVE ATIVE FOR YOUR ENVIRONMENTALENTAL IMPACT<br />
x111 have little or no Snflumae oa the dealeion levelling this high-level<br />
ONMENT<br />
s in Kraal I 9<br />
STATEMENT AND THAT IS, IF YOU CANNOT NEUTRALIZE IT,THEN STDP<br />
flagrantpdi sregard forithe comes=. otlthe verirpeoplegWholoxe a!feated 2. 3. 2. 12<br />
2.5.6 PRODUCING IT] YOU HAVE NO NIGHT TO ENDANGER THIS GENERATION OR by It. Wg live heiei YS are the Omen at r1W WE are the ones deeply<br />
a .... Th. -about tbo mibty of our ahildine• our giWad hildre. and their<br />
Mlldranand grmndohildra. Who Mould Mae nor. ri ght to Intl ...a. the<br />
GENERATIONS TO CaM51<br />
decision than the very people ago live her..<br />
I Ha ve read that The Sealth and Smergy Institute In Weshingto.. O.C.<br />
Me determined that the Solidified lam rook at the <strong>Hanford</strong> SECS Ss too<br />
THERE ARE THOSE OF US WHO LOVE PLANET EARTH, NOT ONLY 001:• prone to posalble high temDersturea l underground enter movement. erplo sil'. 2 , 1 , 1<br />
metbane Sea Rod the potential for stress-aevead ^look berating". potential<br />
BUT 100 YEARS FRO11 RON; i 3 O0D YEARS FORM NOW AND YES, EVEII<br />
problem. have also bees identified by the U.S. G..1091a Survey. the<br />
Me.tIOY A.Hdegir of Guinness and She Mualrr BegolatOry. COma.mltm.<br />
10, 11 00 YEARS FROM NOVI AND VIE HILL HOT HAVE IT RENDERED HASTE BY<br />
Me are talking about material whloh Would remal. Murdoua for up to<br />
THOSE FOOLISH INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT SEE FURTHER THAN THEIR<br />
10.000 years: I do not believe for One minute thet there I S flay, possible 3.3.5.1<br />
wt. determine that this mete al be Safely gonflned for that period<br />
SELFISH HOSES.<br />
of time.<br />
Keg m mt C%M
d<br />
m<br />
125<br />
s(fllEm61r Pap- TM Pabkc 1AeAr;h5 -II g I km Kn,khtm , Wr<br />
CRNDftLE P(ER« 5J5 6PYA76T WKttit Wft t.A; wM "3(r2-<br />
F21'kbar<br />
Greetings: I • m a 'from Walla Walla. In the ongoing<br />
geologists and also by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The basalt<br />
flow of my life. 1 try to teconCile daily Stress and tension with<br />
is a result of volcanic activity--who can guarantee that for the<br />
potential threat of harm from household accidents, automobile<br />
accidents, crime and natural disaster• to list Just a few. Znviron-<br />
next 10.000 years there will be rt0 movement of the continental<br />
plates? Hot only is the proposed ground site unstable. but it is<br />
2.1.1<br />
mental pollution in our agricultural communi ty is a so,, and frighten-<br />
located so very close to one of the world's largest rivers. The<br />
ing phenomenon. To top off the knot of worries, the volatile state<br />
Columbia aquifer serves a huge region, irrigating thousands of<br />
of world affairs and the global economy give me cause for great<br />
acres and providing drinking water for large populations.<br />
concern. All of this negative stuff overloads my stress circuits<br />
And why is it that although the large majority of,higbdlevel<br />
causing me to indulge in the all-too-popular tendency to ignore the<br />
waste is produced in the eastern half of the United States that<br />
:looming threat of the <strong>Hanford</strong> facilities. I • d like to bury my head<br />
In the sand, but soon that sand could be radioactive. I also realize<br />
storage location is planned for the west?How can it make sense to<br />
transport dangerous stuff all the gray across the continent, along<br />
3.4,2.2<br />
r<br />
LT<br />
U1<br />
2.5.5<br />
that the federal p olitical machine is counting on us laid-back<br />
HOrthwaster..r. to remain laid-back. So although it take. gr^_at<br />
energy to speak out. I'm afraid to :keep silent.<br />
Today in Richhand at this .ublic hearing I'd like to address<br />
two items of enormous concern: the increasing possibility of location<br />
of a national high-level nuclear waste repository on the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
reservation, and the potential of a "Chernebyl-:lest", that is, an<br />
accident within the N reactor.<br />
The issue of the repository is one of safety or destruction of<br />
the Pacific :lorthwest--nos politics and convenience. I have read a<br />
..nnary of the OC8'e Graft environmental Impact Statement, and feel<br />
as though the fox has assured me that all the gates and s of<br />
routes that are populated and not alirays sunny and dry? Is the<br />
Population along these intended routes of transportation currently<br />
Informed? It is an irresponsibility of greedy negli gence that<br />
the plants producing waste do not also process that waste on site.<br />
The second item of concern here today: regards the _N reactor.<br />
I join the thousands of voices demanding a shutdown of this plant.<br />
In light of the recent accident at Chernobyl, it is treacherous to<br />
continue to operate a facility that has many similar structural<br />
deficiencies. The potential' for human error also looms large—is<br />
it possible that there exists the same sort of cocky self-assurance<br />
that was the downfall of the space shuttle program? And is there a<br />
real aw.raness of the p ... Ills magnitude of any error?<br />
2.5.6<br />
the Chicken coop are secure. There is a breakdown in basic language<br />
4.1.18<br />
usage when it is stated that none of the nroposals would result in<br />
significant impact on the environment.<br />
2.1.1<br />
The basalt rock of the area is completely inappropriate for<br />
..d cklw. ,, I<br />
storage of radioactivap waste, as has been stated byt&Mpt$5n@OERL<br />
JUL 221988 6125<br />
WM OIViSION<br />
ReCEPw^=^ WE-RL<br />
auL2219B8 . 612"<br />
WM DIVISION
125 12G<br />
2<br />
I realize it Ss I. my bast interest to remain Calm and polite,<br />
,5,6 but I feel my fear ne colating with rage at the added obscenity of<br />
the productionof weapons-grade plutonium from products of the<br />
N reactor, compounding the danger of this tecbnology.<br />
In summary I'd like to state the following: 1) there is currently<br />
at <strong>Hanford</strong> a quantity of high-level waste without a.treatment plan.<br />
It is an abomination to bring more, especially to an area that is<br />
2. 5. 6<br />
geologically untbbla. 2) Ta A reactor must be Shutdown<br />
in order to allow a thorough safety check and overhaul by independent<br />
.gentles.<br />
Meanwhile, I . 11 continue to paint my house, tend my organic<br />
garden, and dream on thou gh there is a future, hoping and craving<br />
that you art list ning. Please, listen deep within yourselves to the<br />
knowledge that this is larger than an economic issue; that the<br />
vitality of a beautif -1 portion of this aarth--our home-- is at at=ke.<br />
and^odne^wa<br />
Kr:"Env u Cc.. .<br />
.. JUL 22 ft<br />
aant of Energy<br />
)NMOIVI$IO N<br />
Richland Cpere[L Ona Office<br />
-<br />
P .. O a .. S<br />
WA<br />
R 1ntl. eM1land WA 99352<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> West. Repository Environmental Concerns<br />
The vast. r.poaitery selection should consider not only<br />
the east amt<br />
also^8the utilization of the most rcost reffective gstate ofuthe art 2.2.4<br />
technological method. far ....ring the ..at.. a— contained In an<br />
anviornnentally mete configuration.<br />
Concerns:<br />
Structural stability of the engineered containers containing the<br />
Bete. to of Primary eastern. The eontelnare suet be able to : 3 . 5 .4<br />
insure the .ate, matter net for. It to 1., doe. not<br />
penetrate the container boundary and batons released to the<br />
environment.<br />
The most c affective moons of producing these containerc.is of<br />
or ono We must .ensure ami.n that overa to meet<br />
the container. should u d.flnit.ly ..at the pry cotes ant<br />
Criteria nns In words ores lets not let unnecessary requirements<br />
di.tet. coal. .1 costs tnflu .... .rit.rim. e<br />
ealiettc ciitarim dean not dictate the ontainer cost. However<br />
3.3.5.4<br />
The' for. the waste 1e to be pro..a .ad into ah..Id be the .at<br />
m<br />
preclude the Investigation of advanced waste form which in the<br />
future may be better suited for longer storage.<br />
stable known. using moat presenttechnology. This should at 3.3.5.3<br />
Leaching of theo Betes from nt aa r to the ground water way<br />
take hundreda of .years but is still w.lar concern of this<br />
nity. The n .rg praeauti.ns u<br />
. should be takento prevent<br />
this from happening. R .... earls, that ...t .££.dive.... to<br />
achi eve theme results In of primary concern.<br />
p<br />
3.3.5.4 .5.4<br />
Sln..rely.<br />
RECEIVED DOERL<br />
JUL 221988 Olv<br />
W DIVoON<br />
Gregory Adam. -<br />
Coneern.a.Tri-eitiea Resident
x<br />
8 ^ f ti<br />
r^<br />
' 3 ^<br />
4g<br />
L.';;.,<br />
2'7 12'7<br />
Rich Sultan, llSDOE<br />
P.D. and 550<br />
Richland, WA 99352<br />
Barbara Clark<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 2<br />
P.O. Be. 122z<br />
21986<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362 DOE D<strong>EIS</strong> JUL 221M<br />
WMDIVISION Clark - Page 2 BIRD<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
N<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.3.2.5<br />
RE: DOE Draft Environmental Impact Statement on <strong>Hanford</strong> Waste<br />
1. The D<strong>EIS</strong> isunacceptable eca<br />
cre d' able no competent.<br />
buse the author (D OBi is neither<br />
The DOE lacks credibility. Recently-released documents (released, it<br />
should a noted, not on Tie- C initiative of the DOE itself but only as a<br />
Molt of public pressure) show that for the past 40 years the DOE/AEC<br />
has both deliberately and accidentally released large quantities of radioactive<br />
materials into the air, water, and soil of this region. The<br />
DOE/AEC did and does this secretively and without regard for the wellbeing<br />
of this area and those of a who live and work here. The DOE was recently<br />
fined for illegal, hazardous operation of the current waste site. The<br />
DOE's N Reactorand PUREE plant have in the last year actually increased<br />
their level of (admitted) emissions.<br />
Thus, the entire history of the DOE to this day shows a knowing disregard<br />
for the health and safety of this region. The public cannot be<br />
expected to believe that the DOE has suddenly acquired aioncern for our<br />
welfare. We cannot be expected to have any confidence in s report dealing<br />
with the safety of radioactive operations when that report bas been prepared<br />
by the very DOE which has consistently ignored safety in its own.<br />
operations.<br />
The DOFlackk s competence. The purpose of the D<strong>EIS</strong> is to evaluate the<br />
impacts E ocer tain proposed actions on the environment. Clearly, an<br />
Organization which would manufacture deadly toxic m terials, which would<br />
contaminate the air, the Water, and the soil with them, and which would do<br />
so with no plan for ever neutralizing them, has no understanding of our<br />
environment and the interrelationship and interdependence of all life on<br />
this earth. It is inappropriate that the DOE should prepare the report on<br />
the impacts 0 1 certain actions on the environment when by its own actions<br />
it demonstrates daily that it has no respect for the environment or understanding<br />
of the fact that our own lives are part of it.<br />
The choice of the DOE to author the <strong>EIS</strong> shows an unbecoming contempt<br />
for the intelligence and understanding of the public. The current D<strong>EIS</strong><br />
should be rejected as untrustworthy and as incompetently prepared, and<br />
new one should be ordered to be prepared by an independent group whose<br />
primary concerns are protection of the public and our environment.<br />
of the DOE'sactual (as contrasted with its stated) criteria for selection<br />
of a commercial waste dump, no effort is going to be made to neutralize<br />
the wastes or otherwise dispose of them in each a way that they will in<br />
fact be isolated from the environment during the 250,000 years of their 3.3.4.2<br />
tonicity. That is; the decision being .ado throu h the limited t'on¢<br />
side red in the DFIS is t at t e e is me ossebi rt of<br />
,<br />
y or fn v an event tn^[ —e ort wvl r a ma a to deva ov seen suca ^enosal.<br />
This is uncons cion b-le.<br />
Monitored retrievable storage would at least not close the door to the<br />
possibility that we cansomehow contain the damage done by the irresponsible<br />
use of nuclear technology.<br />
The current D<strong>EIS</strong> should be rejected as having failed to consider at<br />
least two of the most rational alternatives for dealing with the wastes.<br />
cefil. Clark CIC^7<br />
Barbara Clark<br />
Bc/b<br />
cc: Office of Nuclear Management<br />
Senator Slade Gorton<br />
Senator Daniel Thom a<br />
Representative Thomas Foley<br />
US Governor Booth Gardner<br />
US DOE<br />
2.5.6<br />
3.3.4.2<br />
2. The D<strong>EIS</strong> fails to consider at least tworea sonable alternative<br />
actions.<br />
There was no consideration of halti roduction of toxic wastes, at<br />
least dingdevelopment pen<br />
of an adequate and safe di sposal system. As the<br />
cup of deadly wastes is already overflovinp, it is astonishing that no<br />
consideration was given to the obvious option of turning off the faucet.<br />
There was no consideration of Monitored Retrievable Stora e. The<br />
proposals considered y the D<strong>EIS</strong> sit boil down t0 leaving t e wastes where<br />
they are and covering them with cement so they can't be seen. Oa the basis
^$<br />
j<br />
t<br />
tai' 'i 2 ?i<br />
^ '^ tr+`<br />
Lm 123<br />
RECEIVED<br />
DDgRL<br />
Page 2<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
T6612NONE OF THE TRI-CITY INDUSTRIAL<br />
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
IMPACT STATEMENT ON SANFORD DEFENSE WASTE.<br />
RICHLADD, WASHINGTON<br />
GULP 8, 1986<br />
JUL 22 W6<br />
WMDMSION<br />
dUL 22 986<br />
WMDIVISION 612?<br />
RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR ACTION AND IS BEING CANDID, HONEST<br />
AND OPEN IN ITS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PUBLIC. IN THIS MGM<br />
WE ARE PLEASED WITH THE DECISION OF MIKE LAWRENCE, DOE<br />
RICHLAND OPERATIONS MANAGER, TO ESTABLISH A BLUE RIBBON 2 • 3 .2. 1 2<br />
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMPOSED OF A CROSS SECTION OF<br />
CITIZENS THROUGH OUT THE STATE. HIS CHOICE OF THE COMMITTEE<br />
AND ESPECIALLY OF ITS CHAIRMAN REV. BERNARD COUGHLIN,<br />
N<br />
Co<br />
yr^<br />
2.3.2 . 12<br />
M. CHAIRMAN, MY NAME IS SAM VOLPENTEST, AND I AM THE<br />
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF SHE TRI-CITY INDUSTRIAL<br />
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (TRIDEC) TRI-CITIES, WASHINGTON. WHILE<br />
I HAVE NEVER WORKED AT HANFORD, I HAVE BEEN VERY INVOLVED<br />
OVER. THE PAST. TWENTY FIVE YEARS IN SANFORD PROGRAMS. AS A<br />
COMMUNITY LEADER I HAVE BECOME VERY FAMILIAR WITH HANFORD'S<br />
ACTIVITIES; WHAT MEN ARE AND WHERE THEY ARE HEADED.<br />
OUR âEPBER5HIP IS COMPOSED OF THE AGRICULTURAL,<br />
COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR SECTOR, THE<br />
CITIES, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, COUNTIES AND PONT DISTRICTS IN<br />
THE TRI-CITIES. OUR MEMMM ARE DEDICATED TO THE PROMOTION<br />
OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF OUR REGION. I AM<br />
PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY TO PRESENT THE VIEWS AND COMMENTS<br />
ON BEHALF OF TRIDEC.<br />
FRANKLY, WE ARE PLEADED TO SEE DOE COMING OUT WITH THIS<br />
E-I-S FOR THE DEFENSE WASTE STORED AT SANFORD. WE BELIEVE<br />
THE GOVERNMENT BAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GET ON WITH SAFE<br />
DISPOSAL OF THESE WASTES. WE ARE ENCOURAGED THAT WE<br />
PRESIDENT OF GONEAGA UNIVERSITY WAR EXCELLENT. WE ARE SURE<br />
THIS COMMITTEE MAN PROVIDED DOE WITH SO ME EXCELLENT ADVICE<br />
AND DIALOGUE.<br />
WE WOULD LIRE TO SEE DECISIONS THAT WHEREVER PRACTICAL,<br />
MARES THE USE OF MISTING FACILITIES TO MINIMIZE COST.<br />
HOWEVER, MOST IMPORTANTLY AND WE EMPHASIZE THIS POINT, THE<br />
.DISPOSAL WORK MUST BE DOME IN A MANNER TO ENSURE WORKER 2.2 • 1<br />
SAFETY. COMMUNITY-SAFETY AND THE PROTECTION OF OUR<br />
ENVIRONMENT.' THESE DECISIONS MUST BE TECHNICALLY SOUND -WE<br />
MUST NOT LOOK FOR THE CHEAPEST ANSWER - WE MUST LOOK FOR<br />
BIGHT ANSWER.<br />
REGARDING DISPOSAL OF SINGLE SHELL TANK WASTE, IT IS<br />
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT DOE HAS ALL THE APPROPRIATE ANSWERS<br />
PRIOR TO MAKING A FINAL DECISION. IF THE WASTE CAN BE<br />
DISPOSED OF SAFELY IN PLACE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH. ALL<br />
APPLICABLE WASHINGTON STATE AND FEDERAL EPA ENVIRONMENTAL 3. 3. 2. 1<br />
REGULATIONS, SO BE IT. HOWEVER, IF THE WASTE CANNOT BE<br />
DISPOSED OF SAFELY IN PLACE, THEN IT SHOULD BE REMOVSp,<br />
REGARDLESS OF COST AND SENT TO A REPOSITORY. IN EITHER 3. 3. I . 1<br />
n
3 ..<br />
g<br />
g<br />
jky<br />
Sw<br />
6<br />
128<br />
Page 3<br />
- RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 221986<br />
Page 4<br />
RECEIVED DOE.RL<br />
JUL 22 SW 61bf<br />
EVERT DOE MUST ANSWER THE TOUGH ENGINEERING AND SAFF.^fYIVISION<br />
FUNDING COMMITMENT FOR THESE DISPOSAL ACTIONS SO AN T&NIDIVISION<br />
QUESTIONS PRIOR TO MAKING A FINAL DECISION.<br />
PROCEED ON A MEANINGFUL SCHEDULE.<br />
OUR GREATEST CONCERN IS MAT THIS WORK MAY NOT RECEIVE<br />
ON BEHALF OF TRIDEC WE THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY<br />
2 2.9<br />
ADEQUATE LEVELS OF FUNDING. IT IS VITAL THAT DOE AND<br />
CONGRESS MOVE FORWARD AT ONCE WITH ADEQUATE ADDITIONAL<br />
TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS.<br />
FUNDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY DISPOSAL ACTIONS.. WE<br />
ARE NOT SUGGESTING THE BEST METHOD FOR DISPOSAL OF THESE<br />
WASTES BUT WHATEVER SELECTION IS MADE IT IS MEANINGLESS IF<br />
NOT IMPLEMENTED IN A RESPONSIVE TIME FRAME. SPECIFICALLY,<br />
3.1-8.9<br />
WE DO BELIEVE THAT DOE MUST MEET ITS 1995 STARTUP SCHEDULE<br />
FOR THE SANFORD WASTE VITRIFICATION PLANT. DOE MUST FULLY<br />
SUPPORT THIS MUCH NEEDED FACILITY WHICH WILL PROVIDE THE<br />
CT<br />
ko<br />
CRITICALLY NEEDED CAPABILITY TO PROCESS NANFORD'S HIGH-LEVEL<br />
LIQUID WASTE.<br />
IN THESE DAYS OF GRAIR4-RUDMAN AND RAMPANT EUDGET CUTS,<br />
DOE MUST REDOUBLE ITS EFFORTS TO ENSURE THIS AND OTHER HIGH-<br />
PRIORITY PROJECTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SLIP THEIR SCHEDULES<br />
2.2 L . 9<br />
DUE TO LACK OF FUNDING. TRIDEC OFFERS TO SUPPORT YOU IN<br />
YOUR EFFORTS TO SOLVE A SITUATION THAT IS A NATIONAL<br />
PROBLEM. ONLY THROUGH THE TOTAL CONNI MENT OF ME TO A<br />
SCHEDULE AM PROPER FUNDING WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN<br />
A SPIRIT OF CO-OPERATION WHICH HAS EXISTED BETWEEN DOE AND<br />
THE COMMUNITY FOR NEARLY THIRTY YEARS.<br />
2.3.2.8<br />
3.3.5.4<br />
IN SUMMARY WS APPLAUD âDE'S OPENNESS AND THE PUBLIC<br />
HEARING PROCESS IT IS CONDUCTING STATEWIDE. THE FINAL<br />
OPTION THAT DOE CHOOSES MUSTNAKE THE BEST ENGINEERING AND<br />
SCIENTIFIC SENSE AND IT MST ALSO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE
15 7 3<br />
129 129<br />
H<br />
V<br />
O<br />
3.2.6.1<br />
3.2.6.1<br />
3.2.6.1<br />
My name is Grew Gardner. I live at 1212 HE Stases In<br />
Portland. I an a father of tso, an attorney and President of<br />
the nonprofit corporation, Pmdah, i.e., which stands for<br />
•People Against Nuclear Dumping at <strong>Hanford</strong>.'<br />
I m here to tell the Hepartmmt of Energy that its<br />
practices at <strong>Hanford</strong> are the most serious current threat to the<br />
prosperity of thin city and this region.<br />
Your draft Environmental Impact Statement is not<br />
acceptable to the people of this region.<br />
The study ignores the socioeconomic impact of your<br />
radioactive- waste :management. proposals on the economies of<br />
Portland, the Columbia Gorge and the State of Oregon. This, we<br />
will not tolerate.<br />
TESTISONY OF ARIIREw A. GARDNER<br />
BEFORE DEPARTHENT OF MESSY<br />
OR SOOY 10, 1986<br />
You need. to understand that any increase in trace<br />
mounts of radioactivity in Columbia Main water or agriculture,<br />
even at statistical levels . you dem safe, will ruin the economic<br />
base of Our region for decades. Bost profiles are not figures<br />
that are impossible to calculate, for most of us involved in<br />
commerce . recognise that the lose of reputation translates into<br />
the less of income. Such things are routinely estimated by<br />
RECEIVED DOE.RL<br />
JUL 23 la<br />
V3MDIVISION<br />
P eople with far less resources than the WE.<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL231986 a!'9<br />
Your failvAtONSION<br />
consider such factors fatally flaws all of your Sanford studies.<br />
Second, your recommnandation for do-place stabilization<br />
Is also unreliable. It is based upon an untested Inch-<br />
1<br />
nology that strikes . the average person as intuitively illogical. 3.3.2. 1<br />
Your failures with steel tanks, and your past and current precticas<br />
of dumping low level waste and transuranic saute into open<br />
trenches, make the contamination of Columbia Mein water as<br />
inevitable as gravity itself.<br />
Covering your mistakes with five feet of new soil is<br />
no comedy. The contaminated soil, the leaking tanks and the<br />
q<br />
existing waste must ge removed and isolated from our ground 3.3.2. 1<br />
water and our river.<br />
We will not accept the conclusion chat full removal Se<br />
3.3.1.2<br />
too expensive. Por forty years you've spent countless billions<br />
at <strong>Hanford</strong>, end in so doing have polluted the enviroment there<br />
in a manner which would subject you to criminal liability in the<br />
private sector. Even today, as we sit here at this hearing your<br />
proposed 1987 budget continues to ignore the environmental<br />
probleve at <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
Smile you acknowledge that 628 of the nation's entire.<br />
volume of defense nuclear waste is currently stored at <strong>Hanford</strong>,<br />
your enviromental protection budget for 1987 allocates just 1<br />
1/2 percent for <strong>Hanford</strong>. The area highlighted in red on the<br />
chart next to me indicates the proportion Of your Environmental<br />
2
N a<br />
:.<br />
S<br />
1 29<br />
V<br />
N<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.2.14<br />
2.2.10<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL23M<br />
Brig<br />
V/M DIVISION<br />
Protection pie allocated for <strong>Hanford</strong>. we, in the Northwest will<br />
not accept a 1 1/2 percent solution for 626 of the problem.<br />
And we will not permit you to open a national dump for<br />
wants from all over the country when your 00 year record<br />
demonstrates you mount even handle the waste. you produce at<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> now.<br />
The day you rejected your own internal rankings to<br />
recommend <strong>Hanford</strong> for the national dump, you awakened the people<br />
of the Northwest. And we promise you will see us at your bearlogs,<br />
you will see us in the court. and the legialatures, and In<br />
the City and County Council.. And we will fight you with every<br />
means at our disposal. Which brings me to my final point.<br />
It was Lord Acton who said a century ago "power tends<br />
to corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely..<br />
You have demonstrated that WE self-regulation will<br />
not work and that our political representative. in Washington,<br />
D.C. have given you far too much power. By changing guidelines<br />
rather than practices to solve problem.r by continuing to dump<br />
highly toxic wastes directly into the grounds by choosing to<br />
spend 61 billion in an attempt to disprove that which is .o<br />
obvious to everyone sitting in this room-that you don't dig a<br />
national toxic waste Awed p.L anv kind just four miles from the<br />
nation's second largest rivers-and by failing to adhere to<br />
environmental standards routinely imposed on private industry,<br />
you have demonstrated an Institutional disregard for the safety<br />
RECEFrED DOE-RL<br />
JUL23M Cozy<br />
WMDIVISiM<br />
of the citizens of this country, and a tendency to experiment<br />
with the truth': that can fairly be characterized as corrupt.<br />
Wee therefore, call for the creation of an EPA<br />
euperfund, administered outside of the authority of the DOE, to<br />
2.2.9<br />
conduct a thorough independent analysis of <strong>Hanford</strong> waste<br />
contamination, and to effect a oosprehensive cleanup that will<br />
endeavor to return the ground and Water at <strong>Hanford</strong> to the<br />
condition it enjoyed prior to . your introduction of radioactive<br />
waste.<br />
And we call upon our federal goverment to withdraw<br />
from the DOE any further authority over nuclear waste management<br />
at <strong>Hanford</strong>; placing such responsibility and authority with the<br />
Federal EPA and theWashington sad Oregon Departments of Envi-<br />
Mamoretal Quality.<br />
Last weekends I ra-read a document that has surprising<br />
relevance to. this.. proceeding I e d. like to quote a passage from It<br />
new,<br />
'Governments long established should<br />
not be changed for light and tr ... last<br />
causes. But when a long train of abuses,<br />
Pursuing invariably the same object, evince,<br />
. design to reduce the Pan Is under absolute<br />
despo timm, bt L8 thei r Ilaht, it " thei r<br />
d uty, to throw off such government, and to<br />
provide new guards for their future seemaity.<br />
These are the words of Thomas Jefferson Contained In<br />
our country'. Declaration of Independence. You, like Ring<br />
Georges have committed a long train of abusee. We. like Jefferson<br />
e . followers, won't wit still for it any longer.<br />
2.2.11<br />
2.2.13<br />
3 e
10:<br />
! .<br />
129 139<br />
•r<br />
.1<br />
RECEIVED DDE-RL<br />
•r JUL 231986<br />
4+ Pt chary tgee<br />
C - WM DIVISION<br />
N mar eo I close with a warning given you on behalf of<br />
-0 -<br />
JUL 2<br />
^<br />
E<br />
EO<br />
U<br />
-<br />
the people .of Oregon..<br />
we will not surrender our mmi[orment.<br />
we will not au[render our state smereignity.<br />
we will not surrender<br />
out democratic values and we<br />
Rich Holton:<br />
RECEIVE'<br />
bc0 CDE-RL<br />
will not surrender our children's . future to the tyranny of a<br />
. I am absolutely against emplo yi ag <strong>Hanford</strong> as a waste<br />
O .elf-regulated bureaucracy like the Department of Energy. deep.<br />
C.:<br />
^.+<br />
Thank your<br />
3ION<br />
"/"DIVISION<br />
I have been following the nuclear situation for some<br />
years and with a great deal of concern. Ben have<br />
- avecceached themselves ea this o.e; they're handling nuclear<br />
materials they<br />
N<br />
don't have the resperositilitp or seam. to<br />
Nadeq as kelp assure safely. There have teen far too man, near<br />
accidents, accidents, canstruction flaws, human errors and<br />
political or management underhandedness to allow the public<br />
nay confidence is the nuclear iodumtry.<br />
.2 • 1<br />
1<br />
I've subscribed to The Iemistcm horning Tsituse far the<br />
last couple of years. Although I clip some article s<br />
regarding the various nuclear plants, waste sites and<br />
related ima ge., I'te sated all aceieles c ...... in, <strong>Hanford</strong>. 2 . 5. 5<br />
I've quite a file full and can see for myself that <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
has a I ... y record. Dh yea, there-s the occasional PH piece<br />
whi ch attempts to noue.d <strong>Hanford</strong>, let theme don@ stack ap<br />
against the many mote ar ticles revealing Handfecd's problems<br />
mad shard erns.<br />
5<br />
- t -
•1<br />
3<br />
J<br />
' ¢ I 6<br />
130 1130<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 23%8"0 (l ;v<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
- I could tediously list many reason. why nuclear storage the nuclear industry and its deadly wastes, then the truest<br />
is da.gerows— certainly .including-Ba.dfsnd . s: basalt<br />
afar ...t has-already ban. mods: 'm ve here at the enemy Red<br />
Z.i.i<br />
f .... fine., leakage. sad the ....felt, to the e.lumbla<br />
p<br />
liver,l<br />
past history of contaminate evils3ons and present<br />
related health .haze rd.,. etc. etc. And that with the<br />
be is us.•<br />
Ceps<br />
t e _<br />
Victoria A. Seaver<br />
eueptio. of the Richland ... (it . . a .atfonal sbmm. but - -<br />
people will risk for the sake of ba ying mark) * so one wants - 2.<br />
Sanford as a national repository; indeed, a great ...y of us 413 S. Al... 13<br />
C<br />
Z .5.6 want Randford shut dews altogether, as I do. 0...... Idab. 83843<br />
RC n r DOE-RL<br />
JUL 231988<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
There are political and business fortunes to made to<br />
W<br />
_<br />
• 2 . Z<br />
J p•Y n E<br />
the nuclear industry. Such personal and corporatepie[ik.'<br />
dan•t real{stical3Y, nor would it uses ethically, concern<br />
themselves with the thousands of years of terrible risks<br />
involved with nuclear waste storage. Short term precautions<br />
and lip service are criminal in view of environmental and<br />
human abuse, you cannot Justify contaminating air and<br />
water, eve. the soil of out crops, nor our communities along<br />
the highways where nuclear easier would be transported.<br />
In the .amm of -defense •. va. • t Out it when the nuclear<br />
industry sanctioned by the government puts us at a mare<br />
immediate risk than those were s.pp.sedly defending.<br />
o.uselve. aguim.t. I. the name at art ... ical .r technical'<br />
w progremm. v .•t at it who. am die from the hazards<br />
sarrou.ding it. If me pa ... R this suicidal firati.. with<br />
_ 2 -<br />
3_
A<br />
5<br />
ml<br />
x.32,<br />
REGEivcD 00E-RL<br />
JUL23SO di31 1 .+19 (^0 ^0<br />
Vll<br />
WMDNf510N<br />
JUL 23 06 dl3^-- /<br />
9. —/3<br />
WMDWIS!od<br />
^/9—/POD<br />
2.1.1<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
^77v ^^ „^ 0<br />
)<br />
^ /LCC^¢-verL fyE:,-^- ,^e<br />
V A<br />
3.3.5.2<br />
9^3/aZ-
s<br />
`I V<br />
t;1)<br />
133<br />
V OF<br />
Okk Dogln CmM¢eimas<br />
pOpO& ^pR®^pm qN iyp^ rrqE^G}±O !1r^a<br />
Fdwmd temY. AAnd i¢amu<br />
FrVa^11I"a11D. ®RLl1VLl 112oc,7 ,Aaenm<br />
Panandi Oryon 972041926<br />
SURFAU OF WATER WORKS<br />
/ww-L^/C^ lv^t2ee^C. rl^..I%f v lu-^t—<br />
^i 7A^ct^u^, iGSuli.0 ..G: J<br />
3.3.5.2 y((^^^4 ^{^<br />
T^^az-<br />
t esevl t<br />
/ / D. -°-' /<br />
July u, 1986<br />
Mr. Jerry White<br />
United States Department of Energy<br />
Mail Stop FED/706<br />
Post Office Box 550<br />
Richland, Washington 99352<br />
HECENZO DOE-RL<br />
JUL23 06 6133<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
Subject: Comments on Draft <strong>EIS</strong> for Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Wastes<br />
Dear Mr. White:<br />
V<br />
LIT<br />
The Portland Bureau of Water Works is very concerned about the Draft Environmental<br />
Statement for the Dis posal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense. Hiah-Level. Tmmsuran ^.and a-T nk<br />
Wastes. _ Because - of our late notificatTion of the recent public hearing in Portland,<br />
we were unable to schedule atime to present these concerns in public. Although<br />
the text of our prepared co mm ents was submitted to you. we would like to take<br />
this opportunity to reiterate our concerns and offer a proposal for addressing<br />
these concerns.<br />
C) p<br />
N<br />
E^7.,<br />
Briefly Summarizingour previously submitted comments, the Columbia River system<br />
is the heart of the region's water resources. In light of the porous and complex<br />
geology of the area, disposal of nuclear wastes at <strong>Hanford</strong> appears to have the<br />
potential to permanentl y impact this valuable water resource. Radiological contamination<br />
of the Columbia River would not only limit available options for future<br />
water su pp l y sources for the Portland metropolitan area. but may also threaten the<br />
long-term viability of existing groundwater water supplies which are influenced<br />
by the river.<br />
It is, therefore, imperative that the <strong>EIS</strong> thoroughly address potential environmental<br />
and economic impacts to water resources downst re am of the <strong>Hanford</strong> site.<br />
2.1.1<br />
3.2.4.1<br />
3.2,4.1<br />
We strongly reco mm end that DOE conduct a study of potential off-site impacts of<br />
alternatives that include <strong>Hanford</strong> as a permanent Disposal site. This study would<br />
include, though not especially be limited to, analysis of a worst case scenario<br />
of radiological contamination of the Columbia River and resulting environmental<br />
and economic impacts to existing and future water supplies. Evaluation of<br />
existing water works facilities and future water needs of the Portland metropolitan<br />
area would be key elements in the study.<br />
3.2-.4.1<br />
Such a study will no doubt be a Major undertaking. For comparison, we arc<br />
currently negotiating with the U.S. Geological Survey for the development of a
p<br />
,i<br />
-410579<br />
133 134<br />
-. Mr. Jerry White<br />
July 17, 1986<br />
Paget<br />
t<br />
City' of l,etiision<br />
? io ax os oxv aex ro er<br />
P08TjOFFILE BO% 61]<br />
LEWI6TON. IaFXO B35a1<br />
V<br />
.<br />
computer model of the Portland wellflelds. We anticipate that the study will -<br />
1.) 7e.11<br />
-<br />
have a total cost of $500,000 and require about three years to complete. The<br />
study islimited only to the hydrology and geology of the area influenced by the July 21, 1986<br />
wellfieid and does not even begin to address water quality issues and economic<br />
considerations. The study we are p ro posing that DOE undertake would, in most -<br />
cases. take advantage of existing, available information and, therefore.. we see<br />
the Portland Water Bu re au as being actively involved in the study. Mr. Rich Holton, <strong>EIS</strong> U. S. Department of Energy<br />
JUL 2 3 1986 O, si<br />
Regardless of the approach or scope for the study of downstream impacts, our<br />
Richland Operations Office<br />
He must be conside d in the evaluation of <strong>Hanford</strong> waste disposal options. P. 0. Be. 550<br />
3.2.4.1 We are the largest purveyor of drinking water in Oregon, providing drinking Richland; WA 99352<br />
.water. to one-third of Oregon's population. Even the potential for Permanent<br />
contamination re of current or futu water supplies of the Portland metropolitan<br />
Dear Mr. Holton:<br />
-<br />
area p sents a threat to re the long-term viability of the gion.<br />
i.<br />
The City of Lewiston appreciates this opportunity to ga<br />
- We very much want to be yo s in the u ongoing process. We would be cement mm on o the alternatives aves be ing considered for the permanent<br />
glad to meet with you and your staff 4o further<br />
tliscuss ourconcerns<br />
and Proposal<br />
disposal of defense ẇastes stared <strong>Hanford</strong>. While addresfor<br />
further study:' r ..... we e s our<br />
t.mm onto on theransp transportation of the to the sicu tes<br />
Sincerely.<br />
Our concern Centers on the use of Highway 12 from Lewiston to<br />
Mi la. Montana for the transportation As you know.<br />
Highway<br />
is ay.<br />
a , it and travel w<br />
waa<br />
way. As it follows Mw<br />
the Loch ea River., it its y through<br />
th .Bitterroot Mountams<br />
an a two-lane highway. c ey. Th Potential O ur danger is clear as<br />
Edward Tee ny<br />
one considers delicate The balan c e nature of the mountains,<br />
Administrator river and valley . The Valley's lifestyle, both socially and<br />
economically, are tied to the outdoors. Any disruption to this<br />
ET/MM/sa ^r•^ ^. ^- {,^ balance will have severe implications to Lewiston and the valley.<br />
cc: Mayor Bud Clark JUL 23 1986 We strongly discourage the use of Highway 12 between Lewiston and<br />
Co issioner Dick Bogle<br />
Missoula as the transportation route for the relocating of de-<br />
-<br />
Commissioner Mike Lindberg WM DI'V'ISION fense waste to its permanent location..<br />
Co mm issioner Mild re d Schwab<br />
Co g issioner Margaret Strachan<br />
Thank you for your consideration.<br />
over<br />
no r Victor Atiyeh<br />
Senator Marl 4atfield - Sincerely,<br />
senator Bob :ckwnod<br />
1^J<br />
Rep. Jim Waver<br />
Rep. Ran Wyden.<br />
3 J
_<br />
y ou op } op o uopeaaua8 a ]nF a uoF]e8t}qo a st<br />
I, pro eanlae no aa3e d.-uest> ] a}q}avod et ]t aey] ana.taq }<br />
.Aa lFSnaap^ . p . E .E.<br />
e wz rap aq rata a re ly >a m a - eat<br />
all ut pan}onuF Paul aq ea>aen aea}an aneq ley]ea,ea s IT . aeyl •ry<br />
au} Feyl le4 3 sPaezey e4l ylaon a ]anpand aealan avya<br />
Sul •S.H uue]saaPUn a41 l>a}gaa pino ao}aaes}yl ea6 S >xvu<br />
all F uoPa^poad 689 eat>n aeyd °9- m Alum,<br />
uy.. auop aF aty] a.,, • 68aeaaaeat.or o ...,do, I padr,orp<br />
a9 ] uw Agra a ]o sa>anoa aaylo ley] aujwa rap • S'H rya avyy .g<br />
a a<br />
' 4 w ... a dn - ea}a uF spuey o}o( a] put<br />
aauuew ery}1 ut paodsaa al ..}.R I—Ars ay] v8uaj l eya 'S-0 ayy Z<br />
ono, ]nys aq p,nan lue}d x ing<br />
ay] pue a ea8-H ayy • l e ao d et p al,suodsaa-3o aryl o] LBolouyaa]<br />
ea}anu 6asgp tw I. ].,I amPawaojuu a9 pinon y>a sag<br />
9FauodsaN do-uea1D asst>nN ao3 aa]oaa aaya >aq n u p} non<br />
pao3ueH • Pao9u ae a u a O0 ] 9l ut pne l dwn nor gey4<br />
sal a en aaa l >n . ayl do oi j ua , pal Prlrnolle aq •Are or yan<br />
or 'AaueH - 4 1T itgjsuodsaa uet anu 3o AaF IOa a atlopa5i5 . O aya '!<br />
:aau, pus a a }<br />
• c6enl aea Par aAenyB}y or sa}an say, I . 1 op e aodeueal<br />
aya huge pouaaauoaswes ln aaya8u ^pedwnp aq pu}"Af 3a<br />
saa u Aue a] pacodd. we I ran.. vjywnlo0 ay, ut do 8ujpua<br />
e Ivu3 atayalew a]sen ava a >nu ft,val Apeaals e} pao3ueH<br />
aaya pauj luo> aalsex Aaea Fl}w yl 8utuea>uoaAuow}aa.4 aay]e8<br />
w sun OI Alnr uopuelaaod uF veuYeay pav3uex ay,. io aaodand ell<br />
G • • J<br />
V O O<br />
- 4 'Z' 3 ' E<br />
'<br />
NOISWO MI<br />
y£io G Y 99fit y Z "IOf<br />
1088-rySZ (COS)<br />
ZIZL6 u.2—O 'pu. YOd<br />
anuantl 418 'N'H LVEZ<br />
epao}8 V-11<br />
.a],ale}u a loss, ' uaaxa evt ., aq pino<br />
aF pue Fpuaale .ayaaler. a 3oal }dryaa eg ret r yan st aaayl<br />
asna >rq a see I P c jl all uo pio3ueHa e} AM 'asel ,no awn •<br />
pao3ueH a,is aF9elins sow Allealuy>al a4, Bu tPU l3 ao3 glea<br />
4>tyn ]otl A,,,.a naeg aealanH eya ylin a —93T V ut 10u ct dwnp<br />
a]sen ..tams ]uauewaad e or paa.uex aapjau.1 o1 uotspap all<br />
^x<br />
'ax seep<br />
e<br />
• e]anpoad asal ana<br />
dalenap par ..d a..,, ay] uj IT 8unnpoad dole<br />
O, eanpauaaaFe<br />
ary walgoad aS., stya a uopnloa algteuodsaa a.— ay]<br />
o, paau<br />
saa uF .slam a4l I, 8u}aasodap aaya ana}laq<br />
9 • s. •S'O rya 3I NOISINICI MA<br />
ZS E66 'ex 'pusly>ld<br />
_ ado 90'O<br />
svopeaaO •prya}g u e<br />
48aau8 I . ']do, •S'H<br />
SI3luaatou 'tl'8<br />
540 0 9861 'vZ lOf<br />
9961 • rot Alnr<br />
SEZ SE -T
136 136<br />
t-<br />
14<br />
00<br />
2 , 5<br />
R. A. Holten/<strong>EIS</strong><br />
U.S. Department of Energy<br />
Richland Operations Office<br />
P. O. Box 550<br />
Richland, We.<br />
Dear Hr. Holten•<br />
P. O. Box 462<br />
Shaw Island<br />
Washington 98286<br />
July 22, 1986<br />
Enclosed is a copy of my remark. at the hearing<br />
of your department on July 15th, afte rnoon<br />
session,at. the Federal Building in Seattle.<br />
It is my hope that the public outcry and concern<br />
about the disposal of nuclear waat.. will prompt<br />
rethinking and a totally new assessment of both<br />
siting the present supply of wastes, the techniques<br />
C of storage and, at importantly, the stopping of<br />
.6 productio of n-. materials we .imply a reunable to<br />
handle with safety to the Earth or its creatures.<br />
FEE/.<br />
encl.<br />
\vet/z^Y^^jt/^^1^^<br />
1y/yours,..^^<br />
[F e$eryckf E, CIA'<br />
aEOEY'eD POE-RL<br />
JUL2410 6134<br />
Wu DIVISION<br />
Comment. by Frederick E. Ellis, Ph.D.<br />
RECE L OL^GRL<br />
Public Hearing, Seattle, We.<br />
U.S. Department of JUL 2? 1986<br />
0136<br />
Energy<br />
July ner 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
2-5 p.m.<br />
Federal Bldg.<br />
The study of history, if nothing else, shows the great<br />
contributions of man as well as his unbelievably stupid<br />
mistakes. In something over ai.-thousand years of recorded<br />
history we have reached surely the zenith of<br />
insanity - churning out vast quantities of highly<br />
toxic nuclear waste under the guise of 'defense' against<br />
the bogey-man of the Soviet Union; a nation, like our<br />
own financially broke and whose populace, like ours,<br />
has no wish for war. Slowly, I thick, the body politic<br />
in this country is getting on to this myth without which<br />
the output of nuclear weapons would grind to a halt.<br />
The deception of the public. by the military and the<br />
Department of Energy is as mind-boggling as it is<br />
self-defeating.<br />
Reading the Environmental Impact Statement, a threevolume<br />
compendium of .turgid prose and highly technical<br />
data stretches to the breaking point one's patience.<br />
The glaring omissions are evident and have already been<br />
dealt with by pz vio.. speakers. Noteworthy 1s the<br />
Alice-in-Wonderland approach to the issue of the siting<br />
of nuclear waste: As the Nock-turtle obse rv ed, 'You are<br />
guilty, now let'e have the tri.11- Now the Department of<br />
Energy is telling us, -We have selected the site and the<br />
th ree alternative. method. of disposal; now let'. hold<br />
a public hearings' This procedure is a betrayal of<br />
public confidence..<br />
2.5.5<br />
Presently accumulated waste at be disposed of ae<br />
prudently as the best scientific talent can devise<br />
accompanied by total ...nation of the production of<br />
2.2.1
G<br />
4 i `; F4<br />
Y7<br />
136 13'7<br />
V<br />
2.5.6<br />
2.2.1<br />
=2=<br />
more plutonium and its attendant wastes. As the only<br />
space ship we occupy, namely planet Earthvwe have no<br />
moral right to pollute and destroy it and its hints.<br />
Think of the Earth as your home. Where do you stew<br />
x gallons of high-octane fuel in that hone; in the<br />
kitchen back of the wood-burning stove? in the living<br />
room near the fireplace? in the bedroom? The question<br />
is silly. You don't store it anywhere in either your<br />
own dwelling or the planet you .inhabit.<br />
So far politics has dominated the whole problem of<br />
nuclear waste disposal. Conspicuously lacking in the<br />
Department of Energysmanagement of the problem has been a<br />
frank, open, non-political, rigorously scientific and<br />
objective attack. Dish .... ty, hoodwinking of the public<br />
and deception have marked the department's conduct of<br />
its business. Like NASAA, the DOE has lost what public<br />
credibility it might have had.<br />
Since the selection of <strong>Hanford</strong> as a dump site has been<br />
a political decision, the abolition of <strong>Hanford</strong> as a dump<br />
site at be political - at the ballot box. I all on<br />
the body politic to repudiate, at the voting booth, the<br />
present administration and its Department of Energy<br />
and, in turn, support representative s . in the Congress.,<br />
the Senate and the White House Who Will be sensitive<br />
to widely ekpressed public concern and legitimate fears.<br />
jar" D. White<br />
U.S. Dept. of East"<br />
West. maaap.evt Div.<br />
P.O. ear 550<br />
Richland. Weak. 99352<br />
Nor Rt. whits[<br />
RECEIVED 'JOE-RL<br />
!UL a<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
A.. served titi.ss I would like to ... the vU.I..o maete<br />
depository site for the very high v tong-tan vuelaat waste<br />
I ... tad is a steel. I.eation for free huma nity, see se deep<br />
e P ssibl.,. such ae'the doearte of Tares. This ae.%e we end<br />
to ...plot. the building of the out seat pleat that converts<br />
the seats into solid fors i..adi.t. 1y. The present math.d<br />
of liquid is took...... do ... runs.<br />
If the locals neat Sanford are not opposed, the burial of la.<br />
level oas t. on eight .... froott"a.<br />
Theek you for this oppoit..ity to gig .y ♦ and Alen for<br />
providing the eospeehmsive a of p.bli. ma eti.g. on<br />
this important issue. Mr. D1ekeWildo's ...at pr .... tatio.<br />
tea ve ry interesting.<br />
Sincerely.<br />
,. rr pft^i`'RA<br />
m1<br />
218 A. ft...<br />
Uses say, OR 97420<br />
march 28. 1966<br />
'a 0/31<br />
2.1.1<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
2.3.1.13<br />
2.3.2.8<br />
o1e1<br />
Rep. Wis. Wacrauke.<br />
fish. Pot Per"."<br />
RECEVVEt: DOE-RL<br />
JUL a? M6 M3b<br />
WM DIVISION
IM<br />
RECOVER DOE-RL<br />
Co<br />
O<br />
4-<br />
R. A. Holtem / <strong>EIS</strong><br />
U. S. De p artment of Energy<br />
Richland o perations Office<br />
P. 0. Box 550<br />
Richland, Wa. 99352<br />
703 Beacon,<br />
Yakima Wa. 95901<br />
Jul y 13, 1986<br />
YDear Sir,<br />
RECGVc"D-DCE-RL<br />
JUL 25 IM<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
Reference : Draft Environmental Imp act Statement<br />
Disposal of Hanfor d Dart,.. H19h-level, Transuranic and<br />
Tank Wastes<br />
C<br />
Defense hi gh level wastes rep resent 98% of the nation's total volume<br />
of hi gh-level Waste and 13% of the total hi gh-level radioactivity.<br />
The Purp ose Of Permanentl y dis p osing of existing and future nuclear<br />
defens Waste is to Provide for an aPP,.e,i.t. level of Protec t<br />
4j<br />
ion of<br />
C the Public health and safety as can reasonabl y be exp ected. All<br />
p ractical means to avoid and minimize eenviromental harm should be<br />
taken.<br />
O It is umd ..t..d that the final decision on several as p ects of the<br />
Waste disposal Plan may be dela y<br />
U<br />
ed Penning fu rther research and<br />
tleveloPment. In his wa y current actions would not P reclude future<br />
technological developments.<br />
O<br />
C The first ste p in anal y zing the alternative dis p osal method. is to<br />
determine the short term effect= from retreival. trnsPorat a. t<br />
on antl<br />
Placement of wastes into the alternative Permanent storages.<br />
The Geolog ic Disposal Alternative he. the hi ghest Possibility for<br />
occup ational exPOSURS p rimaril y due to the lon ger imPlamantation of<br />
this alternative. The other alternatives have a much lower<br />
occup ational ex p osures but all are far less than naturally occuring<br />
radioactive sources<br />
The Potential for radiolo gical aceiMnts is %,,h4 j Iw the same<br />
operational accidents and there is no si gnificant differencebetween<br />
thedifferent alteratives.<br />
The nOnratllola4ful Im p acts - injuries, illnesses. b fatalities - in<br />
the Oeolo9lc Dis posal Alternative are 4 to 6 times as any due to<br />
Increased man-hours and travel distance required for implementation.<br />
All other alternatives are about equal.<br />
Natural resources are not in short supply and are not s 19n1 P 1cant on<br />
a national scale since the y are re q uired over a 15-30 y aar Period.<br />
Geolog ic Disp osal Al'ternati've re quires about five times more energy<br />
and materials then the other alternatives,<br />
Re garding ecolog ical imp acts the Hanfortl sites. are Alread y tlistruPted<br />
JUL 25 19U6 0139<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
and tem p orar y further di ... Ptlon of Plant and animal cc nits es<br />
would result from all alternative imPlementat ions. 'he m Geologic<br />
Dis p osal Alternative is the most di.ruPtlon but there is little<br />
si gnificant difference between any of the alternatives.<br />
The selection of any of the alternatives would not affect current<br />
land uses or adversl y affect the local Tri 0--tv economy<br />
CQNCLUSION : The Geolog ic Di.P.A.1 Alternative has the highest<br />
Possibilit y for occupational "Postures and nonradiolo93eal.<br />
impacts Primaril y due to the lon ge, . im p lamentatlen of th,=<br />
alternative. In all other _ r - imPocts there is little<br />
sisnificant difference bet ... n any2of the alternatives with<br />
little to recommend one alternative over another.<br />
The second ste p in the analal y is of the atternati ie tl3 s p asal +e•ho+s<br />
5 t0 determine the PCSidysP OSaI :np aCC3 (Long term impacts up t0<br />
:0,000 veers).<br />
Chemicals are intertwined With r.di.activ. wastes and ...Id be<br />
I ... h.d from tank wastes into drinkin g water a d emend water but<br />
would not be adversl y effect.d off a it,. -<br />
active<br />
iT•stitutione.l control, Projected environmental im p acts are small with<br />
little to recommend one alternative over another with res p ect to<br />
.long-term im p acts on Public health ana safety.<br />
Leached rI.stes due to infiltrated?reca p itat:on, oven with double the<br />
Pre."" avera ge annual p reci p itation
51 0<br />
13 19<br />
DO<br />
W<br />
F-'<br />
3.3.3.1<br />
Th9 Overall cast of the NO Dis p osal Alternative at first. aPPear to be<br />
the lowest, - $1.8 billio n, brit continued costs of 21.3 billion Per<br />
century could a" , make it the most CXPeneive. The geologic<br />
di.Pes.l Alternative, totaling .Colt ill billion, is four times more<br />
exPensive than either of the other two alternatives.<br />
CONCLUSION' S Although the Geolo g ic DiePOSal alternative removes<br />
9S o' the redicactivitw and shows the lowest lon g term<br />
releases to the ...iroment, the i ..... Ad short terra<br />
OP ... tional exPo.,,. to workers and the Public, and the vast<br />
increased costs not iustifiable On the Laiis oe increased<br />
1 abl:c sale<br />
With continued nsite mana gement and Monitorin g the No<br />
DisPOSal alternative would be accePtable in terms of safety<br />
but long term costs could becona Prohibitive. The No D`P.sal<br />
alt mail'. would no', sotvs the dis p osal Problem, but would<br />
simPlu PostPOne dealin g With Permanent waste disPOSa.I to<br />
future 9enerat ions. This alternative is essentiall y the<br />
continuation of Presenim aste mana gement Pre.ct.ces and L<br />
therPOrp 'not. iccsltabte.<br />
The i .is,.e Stabilization Alternative ..Its For<br />
immobilization and stabalization of Waste and relies on a<br />
Protective barrier and marker. S y stem. In view of the limited<br />
geolo g ic ilotection p rovided for t tlan•?erous<br />
* es thin alternative would be u, ... C.Pt.ble in<br />
terms of Public safet y . With onl y a sli ght additi ... I cost,<br />
Increased Public SAFet y can be achieved thru gvolJ9ic<br />
isolation.<br />
Finall y the a r e Alternative stt3 in tow releases and<br />
heat<br />
health and a reasonable cost consistent With the Public<br />
health and safety . Most important<br />
l y this<br />
d mandates<br />
all new and .edits retrievaib e deiense wastes G. b edi sa eyed<br />
of LLtlli2in g 6e... J'f iC ^eP JSlter y laOldti on,<br />
RECOMENDATION' I ... C ... d that the Preferred alternative<br />
Chosen for the di.POSal of <strong>Hanford</strong> defense Waste be the<br />
Reverence Alternative.<br />
Sp eci ficall y the following mana gement elements should be utilized to<br />
.veal with defense wastes:<br />
Es1'stin9 Tank Waste:<br />
Sing le cell tanks - Th. old., sinSt a-wa It tanks contain waste that<br />
would re quire sPeoiallzed, costl y , a.nd Potentiall y hazardous recovery<br />
operations. Diffic'Jlt retrieval and lower radioactivit y su gg est that<br />
sending it to A dee p rep ository after immobilization in g lass m a y not<br />
will be di.P ... d of In under ground cribs. The remainin g slurry<br />
containin g salts and radioactive mixtures are t reated and turned to<br />
grout then returvme to the tanks. Finall y the tanks are filled with<br />
gravel and sand to Prevent dome. collaPSe and the tanks are sealed.<br />
The Harrier & Marker $,stem is utilized to isolate Waste from<br />
external li q uids a'nd o os y stems. A CRSS sur .ilance in addition to<br />
ma:nua.l monitorin g far the tank tf.P, levels, and radioactivity , and<br />
surrounding soils should Continue to be used until all tanks are<br />
isolated.<br />
Double-shell tanks - Waste retriived b. h y draulic s - in9 is<br />
"Perated. The Nish-level 'mate is vitrified and placed in a<br />
geolog ic rePOSitorv. The low-level waste is concentrated by.<br />
evaPOration and converted to g rout and disPosetl on site. The Final<br />
dlsPOSition of the tanks would be similar to the . =-.rrg la wall tanks -<br />
filled with gravel and sand and sealed. The Barrier & Marker $,at..<br />
is utilized to isolate waste from external li quids and ecosystems.<br />
Future t .nk wastes:<br />
Solids and li q uids would be sePerated With Cesium. bein g removed Fr..<br />
the suPernataht. Ths .1,d ge and cesium is Processed in. the<br />
vitrification Plant and Placed in A 9"1091c re p ository . The liquid<br />
would be converted to grout and disPosetl on site.<br />
Strantiumnesium<br />
Low volume but contains 601. of all hi gh-loval defense waste<br />
radioactivit y . Current beneficial leasein9 for medical PurPOSes<br />
would continue. Cesium is extracted From li q uid waste bW ton<br />
exchange and converted to a solid. Continued Storag e in water Basins<br />
until 1935 then it wC,ld be and Packaged into canasters<br />
and Placed In geolog ic rePO4itOrv.<br />
Retreivabl. Stored & N..IW Created TRU Solid Waste!<br />
TRU 1is 10% of DW vat... but less than it: of radioactivity.-<br />
Remote handled TRU handled in i s p ecial Haste Receiving and<br />
Procaain9 Facilit9 and sent toWiPP. Contract-handletl Waste are<br />
sent to WIPP without re processin g . All waste
'<br />
_ j<br />
L<br />
..................<br />
F^<br />
Y<br />
0<br />
140<br />
CHET ORLOFF NEI;!:VE L) WEAL<br />
Portland. Oregon ?PZio<br />
JuL a 51986<br />
VIM DIVISION<br />
July. 15, 1986<br />
WASHINGTON STATE SENATE h<br />
SENATOR AL BAUER<br />
amp n.bct<br />
July 21. 1986<br />
Y<br />
RE,ti,,L) 1.8E-RL<br />
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY<br />
- Operations office JUL 251966<br />
Waste Management Division 0 140<br />
Richland, WA 99352<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
ATTENTION: R.A. Molten:<br />
Mr. R. ep Hotten/<strong>EIS</strong><br />
O . . of Energy<br />
Ric 6 Rd erat<br />
hland Operations<br />
P. 0. Box 550 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT<br />
Richland, NA. 99352<br />
This letter serves an my commentary on the Draft Environmental<br />
Impact Statement on the disposal of defense waste at <strong>Hanford</strong>.<br />
Dear Mr. Holten:<br />
I a n e nod that the Only opportunity for Public input on the<br />
m c c<br />
On behalf of Wfellow Oregonians, I Wish to add Own<br />
of defense waste disposal is<br />
my few words,<br />
during the 120-da y. comment<br />
the Environmental 2.3.2.7<br />
2.1.1 expressing strong resistance against the receipt and period on Imp to Statement.<br />
g g<br />
Storage of<br />
The problem with<br />
the Public-comment time frame e tes to the failure<br />
F, nuclear wastes, to the many and el Nvent words year have already<br />
of the<br />
impact statement to select an option for the disposal of defense<br />
waste.<br />
00<br />
Instead, the.-statement merely lists four alternative. for<br />
N<br />
disposal. The final impact statement, whieb rs scheduled for<br />
I full realize, have long studied the matter and being the<br />
releasezn the summer Or fall of 1987 , . will select<br />
an<br />
brother of a nuclear physicist, the problem the peparterent of<br />
option that<br />
excludes a public-comment nefear feel it is extremely Shortour<br />
nation face with the Problen of nuclear<br />
sighted to take comments e on four options but not take comments o on<br />
Energy and, Indeed ,<br />
wastes. sre<br />
The issue. of a<br />
much great" than that with<br />
the final option seellecc ted e implementation.<br />
T you and your colleagues are facing and for which you must<br />
public should<br />
have the opportunity to ant on th e selected<br />
arrive at an answer.<br />
how<br />
a<br />
That issue being h we produce and conserve<br />
Proposal the<br />
Department of Ene rgy intends to put into effect.<br />
energy in this country. However, is all of us h face an intense<br />
regional problem and that is th no matter I wish to express nO'<br />
I am also concerned about the rotorrelationship<br />
belief<br />
between defense<br />
to you on.<br />
wane s disposal and the commercial repository Prog ram. It appears<br />
to that the two<br />
2.1.3<br />
s they arate<br />
Very simply. f rom most (I'll admit. not all) available<br />
re lat.d.<br />
le evidence --<br />
However, the<br />
Department maintains a they ae are<br />
r ra<br />
thereby leaving<br />
from the federal 9 overnment.<br />
industry, Y ani public P insti-<br />
it to the<br />
public to decipher any pact decisions e program may have<br />
2 . 1 . 1 continue it is readily apparent to the objective s that o<br />
the other: I firmly e<br />
believe the Departnt me should address these<br />
continue to collect atti re nuclear wastes athe an the Ns on Reserve possible impacts in the Draft Statement.<br />
is folly. Noe rs than that, it is Criminal<br />
-- if not considered<br />
So now, it will certainly be held so by future generations.<br />
I do not believe <strong>Hanford</strong> is a suitable site for a high-level<br />
uclear waste repository<br />
I predict that should it be decided to build up, rather than curs drologic<br />
be cause of its geologic and hy<br />
ate o f Washi I<br />
rt e<br />
ref<br />
tail, <strong>Hanford</strong>'§ storage a the federal government 9 will<br />
zens of<br />
State of Washi ngton uoono this<br />
sensitive the<br />
r e. cr ti<br />
athe<br />
if<br />
have a crisis Of s o me,or all<br />
marjor of<br />
ositi p roportions its hands. I predict that<br />
the<br />
2.<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> 11 .<br />
defense wastes are disposed<br />
the amount of opposition to increased ed storage a<br />
a repository, I<br />
will grw to<br />
would also oppose. disposal at their present site.<br />
rate and to a level that will alarm even the West dedicated<br />
t deer civil disobedience. oan nrd And I predict that should<br />
It be decideded to add Nif o storage capability, ct<br />
stances will soon. for ce ce. if not re;ui r<br />
re, a reversal of that<br />
decision.<br />
Bhet r d<br />
andomm.vxsrnm. Wcymm Meyn RWm pV.Lm o g<br />
tlmmes, Y^eB oaNg<br />
7o11MlzxvwWza<br />
PN mF. Wmf.IMm Gflidi V WaHtrpIM v.<br />
(aro))envaxi<br />
Oaa` 9U.Uzb
d 3 a.<br />
Hou<br />
MM<br />
NECE-0 !?OE-RL<br />
Holton JUL 251986<br />
July 21<br />
Page 2<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL Wm<br />
3.<br />
For the past three or four years I have been in d"Oustion with<br />
Rep. Dean Sutherland on this issue and share Rep. Sutherland's<br />
opinion that a Monitored Retr a ble Storage system is the<br />
Preferred option. 1 feel strongly that the people of the State<br />
of Washington should have the opportunity to comment on an.NRS<br />
system..<br />
July 21 1986<br />
JUL291998 6141 nw<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
00<br />
W<br />
Please eater these coresents in your records.<br />
Respectfully,<br />
^<br />
AL<br />
AL BAOER,<br />
STATE OF WASHINGTON<br />
AB:ma<br />
Michael J. Lawrence<br />
Manager<br />
Department of Energy<br />
Richland Operations Office<br />
PO Box 550<br />
Richland WA 99352<br />
Dear Mr. Lawrence:<br />
As a member of the Northwest Citizens Forum I herewith<br />
submit my observations on the Department of Energy's draft<br />
environmental impact statement concerning <strong>Hanford</strong>'. defense<br />
nuclear sate. Not being a scientist, I have refrained from<br />
trying to make any scientific criticism. and have instead<br />
confined myself to a layman'a views.<br />
As you will note in my report, I am very appreciative of the<br />
splendid cooperation of Jerry White and others of DOE who have<br />
baby-sat the Forum so patiently. On occasion they must have been<br />
driven close to frustration by the questions and comments of<br />
Forum members and public participants. But they kept their cool<br />
under the hottest fire. A DEC with oak leaf cluster would be<br />
appropriate.<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
C<br />
r+<br />
J.<br />
nfD<br />
s<br />
C'P<br />
Sincerely, ^ i<br />
FI<br />
0-<br />
!/,//X/!//- /&<br />
RL COMMITMENT CONTROL<br />
JUL 2 4 1986<br />
RICHIAND OPERATIONS OFFICE
111<br />
W"<br />
N<br />
2.2.14<br />
2.2,3<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 291986 6141<br />
@IM DIVISION<br />
1. RKHARD NOSES 14650 S.W. 103M AW. TIGARD, OREGON 97224<br />
citizens forum report<br />
From S. Richard Makes<br />
Member NN Citizens Forum on Defense Nuclear Haste DrsPOSAI<br />
To! Rev. Bernard Coughlin<br />
Chairman, Northwest Citizens Forum<br />
O.S. Department of Energy<br />
Subject: Personal critique, DOE D<strong>EIS</strong> Defense Nuclear Waste<br />
Disposal<br />
Because the Northwest Citizens Forum was invited to critique<br />
the DOE draft environmental impact statement on disposal of<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> defense high- level, transuranic and tank wastes, and<br />
because DOE will issue ..bsaquent draft <strong>EIS</strong> on disposal of wastes<br />
from commercial reactors and on selection of a. site for permanent<br />
disposal of nuclear wastes, I confine my remarks to the draft<br />
environmental impact statement concerning methods of disposal of<br />
defense nuclear wastes.<br />
General Statement<br />
Defense nuclear waste has been ac cumulating at <strong>Hanford</strong> for<br />
more than 40 years, and while it has caused minimum hazard to<br />
the environment. Congress and the people generally agree a<br />
process should be started looking toward permanent safedisposal.<br />
Other nations, notably France, are ahead of the United States in<br />
selecting permanent disposal techniques. Even China, with ten<br />
reactors and two more being constructed, has begun• process<br />
to select a system of permanent disposition and has been in<br />
consultation with French engineers in Beijing on this subject.<br />
The challenge to the Northwest Citizens Forum has been to<br />
advance this process by analyzing and criticizing the draft<br />
environmental impact statement issued by DOE last April 1, and to<br />
insure that northwest residents generally have Dpportunt ty to do<br />
the Same.<br />
A major complication has been the timing of the announcement<br />
of the selection of three finalist locations for the first<br />
permanent site for a nuclear waste repository, one of the three<br />
being <strong>Hanford</strong>, Washington. This announcement came close on the<br />
heels of the first meetings of the Citizens Forum and has caused<br />
such an adverse Political and public reaction in Washington and<br />
Oregon that the DOE's statement an military nuclear waste has<br />
been almost completely obscured. Public hearings on the subject<br />
have on occasion developed into virtual public hangings of the<br />
DoE, focusing little on the specifics of the D<strong>EIS</strong> on military<br />
nuclear waste. This has been most unfortunate.<br />
In my view, any plan for disposition of the accumulated and<br />
I<br />
RCCC11fEL :f,-9L<br />
14<br />
JUL 2919860<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
future defense nuclear and chemical waste should focus entirely<br />
on public safety for generations to come. Financial cost should<br />
be secondary to environmental and health costs. Ten billion<br />
dollars in expenditure if it provides maximum long-term safety is<br />
preferable to a two billion dollar expenditure that might provide<br />
lesser assurance of long-term safety. When we are talking of<br />
10,000 years or more, ten billion dollars would be a small price.<br />
Specific Considerations<br />
Withxceptions, I agree with the Oregon position released<br />
by Gov. Vic Atiyeh and presented by David Stewart-Smith to the<br />
recent meeting of the Citizens Forum in <strong>Hanford</strong>, and with the<br />
draft consensus position of the alternatives sub-committee of the<br />
Forum at the same meeting. The two are compatible..<br />
A. I agree that option 1 (vitrification and geologic<br />
dial, ... 1) in the DOE D<strong>EIS</strong> should be the preferred method of<br />
disposition. All high level waste(HLW) should be retrieved,<br />
glassified, packaged in stainless steel cases surrounded by<br />
concrete and permanently deposited in a deep repository wherever<br />
that may be. DOE estimates this would be 98 percent (by<br />
activity( of the waste.<br />
B. Transuranic waste should go to the waste isolation pilot<br />
plant in New Mexico. This includes pre- and post -1990 THU waste..<br />
C. I am not convinced after reading the report, listening to<br />
testimony and observing on-site testing of engineered barriers<br />
that shallow burial will ever be feasible. All single shell tank<br />
waste, even though it is in cake or sludge form, should be<br />
retrieved and disposed of in deep geologic repositories. The DOB<br />
draft <strong>EIS</strong> indicate. is retrieval technology does ..t exist, so<br />
additional research should go forward as Oregon recommends. It<br />
Should be noted that Washington's draft statement (page 2-7,<br />
July, 1986( suggests a passible solution. Mike Lawrence in his<br />
statement to the forum via Father Coughlin duly 3 also suggests a<br />
possible method and mentions the final SIB will address the<br />
various possibilities of complete clearing of single-shell tanks.<br />
Lawrence. suggests that adding a sealant around and under the<br />
single-shell. .tanks is not feasible at present.<br />
In general, the barrier development program has not yet<br />
providedsurance that shallow burial would over the long<br />
term be a safe technique. Intrusion byma animal species,.<br />
plant noting and decay, and natural disasters such as<br />
earthquake and climatologic change over the thousands of years<br />
are dangers that come to mind. Markers on the site over such a<br />
long period could be obscured, removed or become incomprehensible<br />
to man in millenia to come.<br />
D. Strontium and cesium wastes double encapsulated in<br />
2<br />
2.2.3<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
3.1.3.25<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
3.3.5.3<br />
3.5.1:8<br />
3.5.1.7
13<br />
.4A<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
3.1.2.5<br />
3.1.6.1<br />
2.2.9<br />
2..2.3<br />
DO<br />
(P<br />
2.3.2.8<br />
JUL 29 1986<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
stainless steel cylinders should continue to be stored in water<br />
basins until a repository is available after which they should be<br />
packaged and shipped to a future geologic repository.<br />
Two other Oregon suggestions should be heeded: 1--DDE should<br />
comply with federal and state requirements on chemical and lowlevel<br />
waste handling; 2. Congress should be requested to<br />
establish fundingperpetual basis for the disposal of<br />
military waste eitheṙ .<br />
ither in the Defense Department or Department of<br />
Energy budget.<br />
Summary<br />
While the in-place stabilization and disposal alternative<br />
and the reference alternative provide cheaper means of disposal<br />
of defense nuclear waste than the geologic disposal alternative,<br />
I am of the opinion that dollars don't count; safety does. Thus<br />
the geologic disposal alternative should be preferred.<br />
Additional comments:<br />
The specific criticism of the D<strong>EIS</strong> by 'Washington State<br />
should be answered forthrightly in the final <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
The question raised by Robert Alvarez in May and discussed<br />
in variou letters since concerning criticism of the French<br />
vitrification technique shouldbe answered in the final <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
While DOE has indicated in a communication of June 5 from R.D.<br />
Prosser to Alvarez that the complete packagin g of vitrified HLW<br />
would eliminate any danger of breakdown of glassified Haw, this<br />
does not appear to be the final word.<br />
DOE also should deal in the final <strong>EIS</strong> (as it did in<br />
communication received by Forum members) with questions raised by<br />
Washington State Senator Bailey concerning the capacity of the<br />
first repository for all the <strong>Hanford</strong> nuclear waste.<br />
I compliment Jerry White and all the other DOE staff .members<br />
who have met with the Citizens Forum and have patiently responded<br />
to all the questions,e of them quite barbed, from Forum<br />
members or the public. I sam afraid that on occasion DOE has been<br />
treated as public enemy no. l instead of as aresponsib le agency<br />
doing its best to solve a problem that huge. in wartime 43 years<br />
ago.<br />
This personal report is written prior to the August meeting<br />
of the Citizens Peru. in Seatt le. I reserve the right to amend<br />
it if subsequent information seems to require it.<br />
July 28, 1986<br />
Rich Holter/<strong>EIS</strong><br />
U.5, Department of Energy k^w<br />
Richland Operations offrne JUL 30 1986 C)4'^<br />
P.O. Sax 550<br />
Richland, Wash. 99352<br />
1NM9ggSION<br />
I received the announcement of your public hearing July 15, 1986<br />
"to provide testimony on alternatives for permanent disposal of<br />
defense wastes stored at <strong>Hanford</strong>". Unfortunatelymy meeting schedule<br />
did not allow time for attendance nor verbal testimony at the<br />
hearing. However, I am sending my comments for a serious review.<br />
1) The above statement in quotes excerpted from the 'concerned<br />
citizen' letter is flawed. It makes the <strong>Hanford</strong> site a foregone<br />
conclusion and in essence says it is the only method of disposal<br />
that is open for discussion. The Government selected the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
site before much was known about nbcia Ge waste, radiation and<br />
resultant damage to humans and the environment. Creation of jobs<br />
often times obscures the desire to investigate the side effects<br />
and, in this situation, it was true and still is, according to the<br />
reports I read from the resident s. of the Tri-city area. These<br />
are three factors. The fourth factor is the general apathy .which<br />
existed 45 years Age and still exists today. It sets the stage<br />
for powerful organizations like DOE to ride rough shad over everyone.<br />
It is my suspicion that someone or a group is p ro fitting<br />
by such actions.. Suspicions are directed to DOE personnel, the<br />
administration or private interests.<br />
2) If what I read in the paper, is only partly true, your organization<br />
is hardly one to be trusted with such a critical decision.<br />
The reports included DOE allowing the disposal of high radiation<br />
waste Jol la low radiation site. The scuttling and destruction of<br />
data that put <strong>Hanford</strong> at the top of the list rather than the<br />
bottom, is unforgiveable. Where has honor, trust, and ethic<br />
gone? DOE has massive jab to improve its public relations.<br />
And there I make the assumption it wants to. The fact that the<br />
letter states "defense wastes" (including hig h . and low radiation)<br />
is all inclusive and is a strategy too often used of using<br />
generic terms.<br />
3) The Governor of the State of Washington is proposing a ballot<br />
at the general election in the fall to get the citizen reaction.<br />
I fully support it. At this point I am not aware of what influence<br />
that will have when the decision is made, but it behooves<br />
all of us who will become more outspoken on environmental issues<br />
to speak out and convince the electorate to vote against nuclear<br />
waste storage to Washington State. A talk of secession might<br />
shock the other states that we do not intend to let the admini<br />
s tration have its way.<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.1.1<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
J. Richard Nokes<br />
July 21 1986
Aa S £ €<br />
0<br />
144.! 143<br />
2<br />
RECSVV-aD f('[-RL<br />
JUL 3 O 1986<br />
4) Your beganization is part of what I term - the fourth govern- 6143<br />
ment. The federal, State and Local Governments of the people are DOE Richland Operations Offi ce VIM DIVISION<br />
8 July 1986<br />
the first three. The fourth is made up of bureaucrats who write<br />
t he .millions or pages of rules and regulations without inputfrom<br />
ATTN R.A. Holten/<strong>EIS</strong><br />
2.5.5 the citizenry. It is this grand . that .puts itself above the ne ads Waste Management Divfiied<br />
p.l/3<br />
0f the people who pay their salaries. It is this group who is party Richland, WA 99352<br />
to deals made with self-interest groups. And it is this group<br />
that has created the situations of lack of trust. And we, as the<br />
apathetic electorate have had a major pa rt i making it<br />
happen - not knowing D how to stop the juggernaught. Iwith to raise the fo llowing concerns regarding the DOE's draft Environment al<br />
Impa ct Statement enti tl ed' Dispos al of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense High-Level, Transuramc.<br />
As you have already surmised, I am totally opposed to the <strong>Hanford</strong> and Tang Wastes:<br />
disposal site. The only r n 1 can-see that the world disposal<br />
site has to be in the United States, is that some persons be<br />
s i te at some be -<br />
future processing will recover more making<br />
1) THE DEPT. OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO<br />
2.1.1<br />
necessary to keep the potential out of the hands of others.<br />
MEET AT LEAST THE MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS REQUIRED OF COMMERCIAL.<br />
Otherwise, there are many wore desolate areas in the world<br />
REACTORS, BOTH FOR THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES ANDTHE DISPOSAL<br />
which would be more suitable<br />
OF NUCLEAR WASTES. Ibelieve it is the responsibi lity of the United States Federal<br />
I can only assure you that I will speak against the <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Government to protect its citizens from internal as we ll as external threats to their<br />
disposal site and will not .support the DOE.<br />
health and we ll being. I therefore cannot understand why the United Slates<br />
eY24<br />
Dep artment of Energy (DOE) co nsistently operates using lower standards of safety<br />
than are required by the feder al government for commerci al nucle ar reactors in<br />
y_,^` .<br />
this country:<br />
1 -' a) How d oe s the DOE justify operating the N-rea ctor sad other feder al rea ct ors<br />
on tic{; RL without containment domes, and with less rigorous safety standards than those set<br />
4735 35th Avenue N.E. by the Nucle ar Regulatory Commission(NRC)7 I do not accept the rationale that<br />
Seattle, WA 90105 JUL 30 T96E because May generally operate within the NEC guidelines it maces no differen ce<br />
cc Governor Booth Gardner<br />
VIM 01%is10N<br />
that their stand ar ds as more lax. Because the DOE has the technic al capabi li ty to<br />
- operate within the NRC guidelines.the DOE and DOD should be required by law<br />
meet at least the safety stand ar ds required of commercial reactors and commercial<br />
waste.<br />
2) ALL DEF EN SE WASTES SHOULD BE RETRIEVABLY STORED FOR AT LEAST 50<br />
YEARS, AND ALL DEF EN SE WASTES SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF BY DEEP GEOLOGIC<br />
BURIAL. This nation has decided that geologic dispos al by deep buri al. with was te s<br />
retrievably stored for at least 50 years. is the safest method for disposing of the<br />
spent commercial fuel The DOE should be requ ired to dispose of all its wastes in<br />
the same way. Theref or e, the DOE should not be a llowed to dispose of its wastes by<br />
In-pram stabilization. and subsequently options 2 (In-Place Stabilization) and 3<br />
(Reference)we unsuitable. -<br />
a) 1 urge the DOE =it least one independent agen cy in co nsider other options<br />
Our the safe retrieval of the pre-1970 defense wastes. so that it can be safely stared<br />
by deep geologic disposal at a site outside of <strong>Hanford</strong>, and retrievably sto red for at<br />
.. least 50 years bef or e buria l. There is no just ification far any other worse ex ce pt<br />
ca st and political expediency, which should not be factors on was te s which must be<br />
isola te d from human co nta ct far at least 10.000 years.<br />
2.2.7<br />
2.5.6<br />
3.3.4.2<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
3.3.2.1<br />
3.3.3.1<br />
3.3.5.3
is<br />
443<br />
143<br />
N<br />
W<br />
V<br />
3.5.5.28<br />
3.3.2.1<br />
RECEVEr COE-RL<br />
JUL 301966<br />
6 l}3<br />
IMM DIVISION<br />
V.2/3<br />
3) ARE RADIOACTIVE DAUGHTER ISOTOPES INCLUDED IN-TABLES I & 2? Tables 1<br />
&2 (p. 1.11 & 12) are d ifficult to understand. For instance, Americium-241 is a<br />
radioactive decay product of Plutonium-239-240, and yet it is not shown to<br />
increase. as Plutonium decays. Were radioactive decay products Computed into<br />
Table 2, or does it only depict Me initial quantities m radioactive isotopee? If not<br />
included already, please recompute to accurately reflect the total quantities of<br />
isotopes<br />
4) OPTIONS 2. & 3 ARE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL AND BOTH ARE UNACCEPTABLE.<br />
The reference option (option 3) is only a d ifferent name for onsite stabilization<br />
(option 2). If one looks at the numbers, it is clear from the reference (option 3)<br />
that the DOB plans to dispose of all pre-1970 waste (which is virtually all of the<br />
present defense waste) and even some of the post 1970 waste by 1n-p12ce<br />
stabilization (option 2): Most of the plutonium generated and extracted by the<br />
defense department was done between 1944 and 1972; No extraction was done<br />
between 1972 and 1983.: The reference option plans to stabilize in place all waste<br />
generated prior to 1970, and much of what has been generated since then (see p.<br />
11,24). Therefore, in option. 3. the bulk of the total defense waste would be<br />
stabilized in place, as outlined in option 2. Therefore. option 3 is effectively option<br />
2 as far as the present defense waste is Concerned. Both these options are<br />
inappropriate.<br />
RECElY20 DOE RL<br />
JUL 3006<br />
6,13.3<br />
v1MDIVISION<br />
P.3/3<br />
7) NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN UNTIL LESS HAZARDOUS TEUMIOtM ARE<br />
DEVELOPED FOR THE RETRIEVAL, PROCESSING, AND STORAGE OF THE PRE-1970<br />
DEFENSE WASTES. It is clear from the wording throughout the HIS that the DOB<br />
time not yet have techniques for the safe retrieval and disposal of the pre-1970<br />
defense wastes (see p. L8, 1.17 for examples). Therefore, no action should be<br />
taken until technologies can be developed for the safe retrieval, processing and<br />
storage of this wastes. It is unconscionable to literally sweep this waste under a<br />
rug of concrete and leave future generations with the task of cleaning itupshould<br />
the DOE 's predictions of environmental impact prove in the future to be too<br />
optimistic<br />
Sincerely,<br />
cey<br />
Paul<br />
224 N. Bellevue. Ave.<br />
Walla Walla, WA 99362<br />
3.3.5.4<br />
3.5.5.14<br />
3) WHY ARE THERE NO CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR ESTIMATES? One cannot<br />
foresee even the near future with 100% Certainty,. and predicting events 10,000<br />
years into the future is even more difficult. Why then do the <strong>EIS</strong> tables lack<br />
confidence intervals omthe estimates? For instance. on p. xii of Vol. I it is stated<br />
that' Downstream users of the Columbia River would incur at most one health effect<br />
associated with the dis posal of waste over the 10,000 yens. This is only me<br />
example of the consistent lards of confidence intervals for estimates. It is<br />
impossible to evaluate the data presented without some idea of the uncertainties<br />
involved. 95% certainty levels should be presented for all tables representing<br />
estimates. What are the uncertainties involved in your health Im pact estimates?<br />
How we re these determined?<br />
2.3.2.5<br />
2.3.2.9<br />
6) AN INDEPENDENT STUDY AND INDEPENDENT <strong>EIS</strong> IS IMPERATIVE BEFORE ANY<br />
DECISIONS BE MADE CONCERNING NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL. It violates standard<br />
scientific practices to have the agency responsible for the generation of the nuclear<br />
Waste also responsible. for evaluating the health and environmental impacts of<br />
nuclear waste generation and storage. It is Impossible to evaluate the ectenti in<br />
data presented without independent input and review. It is imperative that an<br />
independent agency be charged with data collection, analysis, outline of options<br />
and production of the <strong>EIS</strong>.
144 144<br />
RECEIVED X&RC<br />
JUL 30 1986 _:14<br />
s-s<br />
00<br />
Co<br />
2.3.2.9<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.2.13<br />
2.5.5<br />
DOB Richland Operations Office p.l/e 6 July 1986<br />
ATTN R.A. HOhen/BIS<br />
Waste Management Div ision<br />
RECEI;Ltd ^rc.(.,^<br />
Richland, WA 99352<br />
JUL 301986<br />
WM DfsGiON<br />
lam writing to express my opinion concerning the DOE 'a draft Environment al<br />
Impa ct Statement entitled' Dispos al of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense High-Level, Transuranic,<br />
and Tank Wastes (<strong>EIS</strong>), and wish to raise the fo llow ing points:<br />
1) AN INDEPENDENT STUDY AND <strong>EIS</strong> IS NECESSARY. 1 ca nn ot accept any data,<br />
probabilities, or co nclusions presented in the <strong>EIS</strong>. since the HIS is researched and<br />
written by the same dep ar tment which has generated, stored, and must now t ry to<br />
clean up and dispose of the was tes. 1 be li eve that no action should be taken on<br />
disposal of defense nu cle ar wastes until an INDEPENDENT agen cy can both examine<br />
the origin al data, critique the DOE 'a <strong>EIS</strong>, explore other retriev al and dispos al options<br />
and make re co mmendations as to how the defense waste should be retrieved and<br />
disposed.<br />
a) This nation was bu ilt on the ide al of sep ar ation of powers: sep ar ation of church<br />
and stale, and sep aration Of judi cial, legislative, and executive bodies of<br />
government. How then can this same na tion set one department; the DOE, with the<br />
task of generating, monitoring, storing, and ultimately disposing of its own<br />
hazardous materials? This is clearly a co nfli ct of interest. No matter how noble the<br />
purpose and how strong the des ire far obje ct ivity, it would be asking the<br />
impossible of any individu al or organiza tion to remain neutral and obje ct ive an an<br />
facets of this issue. I therefore co nsider it imperative that an independent agen cy<br />
be set up to monitor past, present, and future generation and storage of defense<br />
wastes and to determine how best to retriove and dispose of the defense wastes<br />
a lr eady generated.<br />
b) I know that the siting of the co mmercial waste repository is beyond the amps<br />
of the defense waste <strong>EIS</strong>, but 1. believe it is nevertheless relevant to point to the<br />
DOB's Violation or its own guide lines in elevating <strong>Hanford</strong> from 5th of 5 si tes to 3rd<br />
of the three si te s chosen for further ch ar acterization. The DOE has lost a ll<br />
cr edib ility as am objective p ar ty by placing its dep ar tmental canceras above the<br />
health and s afety of the Am er ican people. This agency cannot be treated W<br />
present options which accursmly refle ct the re al health and environment al impa ct s<br />
Involved.<br />
vN DIVISION pZH<br />
2) ALL DEFENSE WASTE SHOULD BE RETRIEVABLY STORED FOR AT LEAST 50<br />
YEARS AND THEN DISPOSED OF BY DEEP GEOLOGIC BURIAL. This nation has decided<br />
that geologic dispos al by deep burial is the safest method for disposing of the spent<br />
commercial fuel. and that wastes should be atoned retrievably for at least 50 years.<br />
The DOE should be required to dispose of its wastes in the same way. Therefore.<br />
the DOE should not be allowed to dispose of its wastes by In-place stabilization. and<br />
co nsequent ly op tions 2 (In-Platt Stabilization) and 3 (Reference) are unsuitable.<br />
Furthermore, retrievable storage far aU wastes for at least 50 years should be<br />
mandatory<br />
It is the duty of government to prote ct its citizens from external as we ll as<br />
internal hum. Why d oe s the DOE continue to operate its reactors and propose<br />
disposing of its nuclear waste less stringent stand ar ds of safety than those requ ir ed<br />
by the gove rn ment of co mmercial reactors? The DOE should be required to meet<br />
stand ar ds at least as rigorous as those requ ired by the government for commercial<br />
reactors! This imperative app li es to the operation of the defense reactors.<br />
including We N-Reacto r. the operation of the PURE plant, and the processing,<br />
storage, retriev al and disposal of all defense nucle ar was te s.<br />
3) ALL DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM HANFORD TO A<br />
GEOLOGICALLY SAFE DEEP REPOSITORY. The Nation al Academy of Sciences<br />
re co mmended the DOE change its selec tion criieria, such that <strong>Hanford</strong> should have<br />
been dropped from the Est of characterized sites for mm mercial waste storage.<br />
Defense wastes are more unstable than co mmerical wastes. These wastes therefore<br />
must not be stored at <strong>Hanford</strong>, and should be shipped away from <strong>Hanford</strong> for<br />
disposal. The location should be chosen on the basis of ge ologic safety, not po li tical<br />
expediency. The DOE has a lr eady co mpromised the si ti ng of the commeraal waste<br />
repository. It should not be a llow ed to do the same for the defense wanes.<br />
a) .Why did the DOE violate its own site-sele ction guidelines in order to have the<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> si te chosen far characterization when other, safer si te s were ava il able? I<br />
am curious to kn ow the justification for this position since it has compromised the<br />
safety stand ar d for site selection. Because the defense waste may be pla ce d in the<br />
co mmercial repository, it is Pertinent to the defense <strong>EIS</strong> W demand that the DOE<br />
justify its decision to choose <strong>Hanford</strong> f ar site chara cter ization. even though it<br />
ranked last on the fist using the DO E's own si te sele ct ion criteria<br />
3.3.4.2<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
3.3.2.1<br />
2.2.7<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
2.1.1<br />
2,2.14
fi e T<br />
i 8 # ^'^ ^<br />
I^<br />
5 a x<br />
?'2. eaa Syc.<br />
2€ '! ,<br />
144 144<br />
to<br />
3.4.2.2<br />
2. 1 . 1<br />
RECOV-f,, DOF F<br />
JUL301986<br />
P3 14<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
b) P. 1.8 states that 'sending most of the <strong>Hanford</strong> wastes M a deep reposito ry after<br />
they have been Immobilized in glass may not be justified when risk and co st me<br />
weighed against benefits. If it is not worth the risk to transport wastes from<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> somewhere else, then why is it worth the even greater risk (greater sin ce<br />
more waste (see p. 1.7), and greater distan ce s are involved) to transport<br />
co mmercial waste from the East Coast to <strong>Hanford</strong>? Surely the granite sites on the<br />
East co ast, the Nevada Tuff, the Texas Salt, and the rocks at whatever site should<br />
have been chosen instead of <strong>Hanford</strong> for further characterization, would be at least<br />
as safe as the water-saturated <strong>Hanford</strong> Basalts!1!!! This is cle ar ly a double<br />
standard.<br />
Therefore, the co mmercial repository should not be l oc ated at Ha nf ord, and a ll<br />
defense wastes should be removed from <strong>Hanford</strong> to a geologica ll y safe deep<br />
repository .<br />
4) NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN UNTIL SAFE TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE RETRIEVAL,<br />
PROCESSING, AND RETRIEVABLE STORAGE OF THE PRE-1970 DEFENSE WASTE ARE<br />
3.3.5.4 DEVELOPED. The defense department cr eated this waste, and should be held<br />
responsible for disposing of ALL its wastes in the same manner as that required of<br />
co mmercial nuclear reac<br />
to rs. It is cle<br />
ar that the DOE d<br />
oe s not yet have the<br />
expertise to do this safely (see p. 1.8 & 1 1 7).<br />
3.3.4.2<br />
2.2.13<br />
Therefore, no action should be taken on the long-term disposal of the defense<br />
wastes untH technologies can be developed to retrieve and package the pre-1970<br />
waste in manner suitable for deep geologic disposal, and should be retrievably<br />
stored for at least 50 years.<br />
Furthermore, studies should be undertaken by independent agencies to<br />
determine the most suitable retrieva l . and disposal options.<br />
5) HANFORD IS AN INAPPROPRIATE SITE FOR STORAGE OF BOTH DEFENSE AND<br />
COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR WASTE. Because plutonium is currently a waste product Of<br />
the commercial industry and the desired end product of the defense department,<br />
2. 21.3 .<br />
fuel should under no c ircumstan ce s be stored at defense facility.<br />
THEREFORE, HANFORD SHOULD BE REMOV ED FROM CONSIDERATION AS A<br />
REPOSITORY SITE FOR SPENT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR FUEL] To store the<br />
commercial waste at <strong>Hanford</strong> is yet another violation of the sep ar ation of powers<br />
on which this nation prides itse lf. It also violates our 40-ye ar po li cy of sep ar ating<br />
the pea ce ful and destructive uses of the atom and is an open invitation to other<br />
nations to make weapons out of their com merei al fuel<br />
RECEIVED COE.R'<br />
JUL 301986 6;44<br />
p4/4<br />
MP,<br />
No government wi ll believe we do not use span[ commercial fuel IM wet K! ea s !VISION<br />
when this rich plutonium resour ce is located in the middle of a defense fa ci lity,<br />
even H it is not used for this purpose! There me sufficient non-defense sites<br />
available in this nation that there is no need to l oc ate co mmercial waste at a 2.1.3<br />
defense faci lity which is repro ce ssing spent fuel for warheads (unless the<br />
government intends M do so). The fact that the DOE elevated Hanf or d from a low<br />
position on the fist of available si te s, passing over more suitable sites based on<br />
safety, supports the notion that <strong>Hanford</strong> Is being chosen as a co mmerci al<br />
plutonium-extraction site (either for bombs of breeder fuel) rather than a<br />
co mmercial waste storage si ls.<br />
What assurance can the DOE give the American citizens and the rest of the world<br />
that spent co mmercial fuel wi ll not be processed into plu to nium for warheads H the<br />
co mmercial waste is stored al Hadwd? I real ize that there is currently legisl ation . .<br />
2 1 3<br />
to prevent this, but congress co uld change the legisla tion, and even H it does not,<br />
the DOE co uld place a blanket of National Security' over the site and repr oc ess the<br />
spent co mmercial fuel without permission. How can this be prevented if the<br />
co mmer cial waste Is located on defense site?<br />
I know the DOE would li ke to ar gue that this issue is not relevant to the defense<br />
waste <strong>EIS</strong>, but f believe the two issues Me inseparable. By setting the precedent of<br />
'M-place stabil ization for the defense was te , the DOE Is paving the way to extra ct 3.3.2.1<br />
Plutonium from the spent commer cial. fuel at <strong>Hanford</strong>, thereby turning the more<br />
easily disposed of co mmercial waste into the same high-volume liquid, sludge, and<br />
solid waste that the defense dep ar tment ca nn ot yet dispose of safety. If it can<br />
2.1.3<br />
weep 40 year's a cc umulation of defense waste under a rug, as options 2 IS 3<br />
intend to do, it can lust as easily sweep all the co mmercial waste under the same<br />
rug after it has been reprocessed to remove the plutonium and uranium, whether<br />
for w ar heads or breeder fuel<br />
--It is therefore imperative that co mmer cial nucle ar waste not be stored at<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong>, and that defense waste be subject to the same disposal practices as are<br />
currently required for spent co mmer cial fuel.<br />
Sincerely.<br />
C. S.'tp ,yam'<br />
CS: Weller<br />
224 N. Be llevue Ave.<br />
Walla W alla, WA 99362.
g0 55<br />
I<br />
145<br />
JUL 301986 145<br />
. _ W&P<br />
Y=pp<br />
`-^:• ^<br />
. nn•iS10N<br />
f^coil GL .Fw '^ .ffiht ,CC z ^4-c,-cA-/^Z^L, ^3
3%_ 3<br />
—ie<br />
v^ F f ,lo1075-94<br />
#,1<br />
1` 5<br />
146<br />
Friday-July 11th.<br />
JUL 30 19BG<br />
olk{+<br />
WMOIVISION<br />
N<br />
It wss midnight last night befo re the last of the public speakera ag ai n st the<br />
use of Nenford as the waste lem, of the nation were finis he d talking. Wes<br />
could sleep after that? You are darned right-wa are all co nc erned and feel as<br />
Hhagh this is going to be forced dosn out throats; like a mother robin feeding<br />
bar thick.. Well, this little "chick" is a anther of feet healthy kids: and<br />
yen have s ee n no anger or force [then that of a mother proteetirg bar oanl<br />
In this case, I look upon these beautiful states of o ut s, as my shell I en<br />
going on record as saying that " WE "'T WANT NDCL'AR WASTE ANYwI Ill" AMi<br />
w iDgg AS ISA1.4 DON'T WANE IT I DRF1uN1I We can't seen to make it clear that<br />
we don't went this poison being made. None of us are infallible. But vA n I<br />
make a mistake In making dinner; w throw if cut and go ant to dinner. What<br />
happens if you make a mistake? And cad knee YOU make mistakes I I m yah throw<br />
it out and go out to direct? Seers like that ba the case. .Thaw it in tie<br />
grand, the sky, or the mean, then go have dice[. It's forgotten. For You it's<br />
forgotten, but the rest of us pay and pay mid pay. Iet's see: we pay for the<br />
spillage, the clean up, the disposal; for making the darned stuff in the begirming.<br />
Wt that's just the monetary side of it. I am wrtled about paying in the<br />
ecology . side of it. I love this s ce ne. I love clean water. I lave to fish in<br />
clean water, I like to eat bealthy ' fish item clean water. I like to drink clean<br />
water, from my can well.<br />
N mome educated idiot wants to put waste near the Colmbial I Can you guarantee<br />
that there will ;.ever he an accident? No Y. can't. Y. can't even guarantee<br />
that ytu'll even h e axamd if it happens. I don't want to see this poison being_<br />
dunped any where in the wrldl gut se the last speaker said last night;"a good<br />
place for this s tu ff world be in Washington D.C." I think that my of you that<br />
w an t it shmad have to have it. Put it in your backyard: or your<br />
yaed might be better as far as you me be concerned. Aftarall, If you pu sh<br />
it off as re someare else the probl em isn't really yours, is it?<br />
It's no secret that cur can government uses us in rests-aECer the fact-thaglt°<br />
it may be. Look at Icse C anal. They Wn?`+ Aeat was happeni ng but [Laugh[ if<br />
they kept Quiet it Wald go away. Poison is poi son she rot taW g about it or<br />
admitting a probl em is there was like a placebo for the geatrammt. We won't<br />
toll wet and play dead just bmause th e gbeemeamet-says so. Viet Nam should<br />
base told them that. Rae p eo ple w il l have the beet say.<br />
2.1.1<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
2.5.5
i.d l yon'<br />
2<br />
146 =14'7<br />
.<br />
RECEDtCD OO&RL CITY OF YAKIMA JUL '311966<br />
pert<br />
JUL3006 Cl^o<br />
YiM UV1610N<br />
6141<br />
I an just a mtln;; I an rot a pzovdcisC; an ob]acfnz by<br />
9<br />
or<br />
1$lol e^T<br />
¢&rated idiot. I'am blessed with good Rd connote Sense: —thing a ®t1Cr l7J['re ofth, Mayo. C? HA" FAX/M.1 NASHINGMN 98"1 P1sr: (509) 5734050<br />
.mad. W bring hex Children up to-aAUthnod. I sla0 have a good sanme of terror;<br />
2.5.6 but I haven't used it math this day. I cas ct tell you how scared I - that<br />
we hove the unclear problem anyway. If ywdon't mnke it you dan't Fame to get<br />
rid of it.<br />
Don't try to but it in Washington, just under Box rose.. I don't kmw bow the<br />
rest of the states are as I Fame lived En the Numbers, states all my life; but .July 30, 1986<br />
I do taw that No want sib still fox dual!<br />
Ibis had d ar e probably nothing as far as D.O.E. id Concerned; The only thirlg Rich Holten/<strong>EIS</strong> -<br />
it has dome for ve is reea lse som e of the tension I have felt today. But I an<br />
2 . 3. 2. 8<br />
N<br />
H.S. Department of EOffi<br />
Richland Otmen tro Office<br />
strong am I'll home more strength far the fight if it cores to one; on beat P. o. Box 550<br />
Richland, WA 99352<br />
the to 1. waste problem in this ommtzy. -<br />
Dear Mr. Bolted:<br />
A cc[ mnmd cltixa and scared. Mom,<br />
/ Enclosed with this letter are y comments on the March, 1956. U.S.<br />
Department Dies of Energy's<br />
E nee to D. Intact Statement<br />
Oia 1 Of Sanford D £soon Draft<br />
XBEaa// o iN ,^"<br />
H h L el T nod Tank<br />
x121<br />
Wastes (DOE EI 011 ). A copy of these comments will be included<br />
Hin e. Ore. 97738<br />
is the report submitted by the Northeast Citizen's Forum as<br />
Defense Waste.<br />
I appreciate the opportunity to comnent, on the D<strong>EIS</strong> and look<br />
forward to continued participation in this important process.<br />
Please address any response to my residence:<br />
916 So. 17th Avenue<br />
Yakima, WA 98902<br />
Sincerely yours,<br />
_<br />
Clarence Barnett<br />
Assistant<br />
Member, N orthwe<br />
Mmbr, e Nrthwest Citizen's Porum -<br />
.. on Defense waste'
147 147<br />
3.3:5,5<br />
RECEPr--D rJOE-RL<br />
COMMENTS OF CLARENCE BARNETT AL 31 1986 6141<br />
ON ND - - <strong>0113</strong> ) 30 afi l<br />
WM DIVISION<br />
TIMING OF DEFENSE GEOLOG IC DISPOSAL ACTI O N S A N D OPE RATI ONAL<br />
DLATE FOR REPOSITORY;<br />
1. There are several statements In the D<strong>EIS</strong> that Indicate defense waste<br />
will be processed and ready for geologic disposal before the operational<br />
date of the repository.<br />
REGEftR:u -;CE.RL<br />
AL 31 1986<br />
HYDROLOGIC AND GEOCHEMICAL MODELS<br />
6(47<br />
VIM DIVISION a<br />
The enfrent status of hydrologic and geachemical models used to simulate<br />
subsurface contaminate migration necessitates making certain assumptions due<br />
to technical and data limitations.Calibration of computer models to actual<br />
field data is an issue to be closed prior to making a final disposal decision.<br />
Statements made in the D<strong>EIS</strong> (rather than a technical analysis) leaves reasonable<br />
is as to the adequacy of some of the preliminary analyses at this<br />
time. Testimony indicates that there are several interpretations as to the<br />
adequacy of the models used in the preliminary analyses.<br />
3.5.2.6<br />
I-<br />
-10<br />
Cl)<br />
3.3.5.5<br />
A. "The meltan glass product is transferred Into canisters that will<br />
he temporarilystored at the TIWVP site. The waste canisters will<br />
be transferred from the HVWP to a geologic repository when such<br />
repository can receive these defense HLW and TRU waste forms."<br />
(Vol. 2, <strong>Section</strong> CA, Page C.2)<br />
This raises the question as to whether there is need for interim<br />
storage. The HDW-D<strong>EIS</strong> does not Include the anticipated inventory<br />
or environmental impacts resulting from this temporary storage.<br />
B. The DOE time line for the commencement of operations for the first<br />
repository is 1990. However, the D<strong>EIS</strong>. states that strontium and<br />
cesium capsules are to be stored In the Waste Encapsulation and<br />
Storage Facility until t995 and then removed for geologic disposal.<br />
(Vol. 1, <strong>Section</strong> 3.3.1.3 and Vol. 2, <strong>Section</strong> H.3.3) The NOW time<br />
line does not appear to be compatible with the beginning operational<br />
date for a rompository.<br />
C. An additional consideration that may affect the HOW time line for<br />
geologic disposal is whether the development of a Monitored Retrievable<br />
Storage Facility will beused to extend the beginning<br />
operational date for the repository.<br />
The final <strong>EIS</strong> should Include contingency approaches that would be<br />
pursued in the event that a repository has not commenced Operations<br />
or the role of an MRS facility for <strong>Hanford</strong> defense waste.<br />
2. Several ambiguities for acceptance of defense waste in a geologic repository<br />
are found In USDOE "Retard of Responses to Public Comments on<br />
the Draft Mission Plan for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management<br />
Program", June. 1985. (DOEIRW-0005)<br />
A. The schedule for the acceptance of defense waste is not tied to<br />
the 1998 date. (Vol. 2, Page 98)<br />
B. Commercial waste will be the first waste emplaced in the first<br />
phase of the first repository. (Vol. 2, Page 1831<br />
This is an area of major concern. It is recognized that additional research<br />
and peer review will be required before a consensus can be obtained.<br />
WASTE PACKAGES FOR GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL<br />
Waste package conceptual designs for geologic disposal have been developed<br />
and prototype testing is in process.<br />
The final <strong>EIS</strong> should include a statement as to whether the final waste<br />
package design will need to be site-specific depending on the yerehemical.<br />
(and other) conditions of the selected repository. -<br />
REDUCTION OF WASTE INTO SOIL<br />
DOE Order 5820.2 establishes the policy of eliminating ground disposal of<br />
radioactive waste and chemical waste Into the soil. DOE plans a separate<br />
study on this policy.<br />
The final <strong>EIS</strong> should include the scope and anticipated . time frame to implement<br />
DOE Order 5820.2.<br />
PACKAGING STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEFENSE WASTE<br />
The DOE has the authority to design and certify its awn packaging to be<br />
used by government shippers. (Vol. 1, Page 1.51 Type B packaging design<br />
must be certified by either the DOE or NBC. (Vol. 2, Page 1.2)<br />
This raises the question as to whether there is different criteria used by the<br />
DOE and the NBC for design certification of packagings.<br />
The final <strong>EIS</strong> should clarify that packagings certified by the DOE must meet<br />
the NBC packaging standards.<br />
3.1.8.16<br />
2.4.1.19<br />
3.4.2.12<br />
3.4.2.13<br />
The final <strong>EIS</strong> should include a time line for the processing of HOW for<br />
..geologic disposal In relation to the acceptance schedule in the geologic.<br />
repository.<br />
CMIII A Fege 1 of 9 CMIII A Page 2 of 9
",T<br />
14 17 14'7<br />
The decision et commingle commercial and defense wastes in the same repoai-<br />
2.1• 3 tor, has raised public concern as W the Impacts of defense waste to the<br />
civilian repository program..<br />
3.1.6. 1<br />
RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
RECEIV@D DOE-.°.L<br />
JUL 31 1986<br />
0147 JUL311986 6147<br />
CLARIFICATION IN VOLUME 3. PAGE E.6, RH-TRU Y/M DIVISION PROTECTIVE BARRIER<br />
i-al reVISION ffive<br />
The first sentence In Volume 3. Page reads: w TRU waste is The successful performance of a pp barrier to cover large volumes of<br />
aam pe ed be toprocessed and stored wfih RH-TRW waste from the tleca waste is a earth consideration applicable<br />
to all dl alternatives. The<br />
en and dtammissioTg h<br />
es ili go to (Underscore added) This<br />
earthen cover design was chosen for the D<strong>EIS</strong> a5 a preliminary<br />
sentence implies that RH-TRU doe s not go W the WIPP before the dec<br />
evaluation of . protective barrier to stop water Infiltration Is -a. into waste<br />
missioning of facilities.<br />
(Appendix MC Engineered barrier effectiveness is one the issues t<br />
must be closed DOE. will conduct a research and demonstration nstra[lon<br />
pr<br />
project<br />
The final <strong>EIS</strong> should clarify that RH-TRU Is sans to WIPP if that alternative focused an barrier performance.<br />
IS selected.<br />
Representatives from the Washington State Nuclear Waste .Board appeared<br />
before the Forum and raised a number of Issues on the preliminary analysis<br />
MANAGEMENT PLANS<br />
of the pr.tactIv, barrier (Appendix M). On July 17, 1986, the Board issued<br />
Its draft "Interim Reports an Policy and Technical Issues" of the HDW-D<strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
The D<strong>EIS</strong> frequently Incorporates within the text a future activity or study Technical laws 1, "Performance of Engineered Barriers and Shallow-Barrier<br />
such as under the <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Management Technology Program or <strong>Site</strong>s" alleges "there is a systematic misuse of references, which requires a<br />
the Hanrd fo Waste Management Plan.<br />
complete reevaluation of all assertions made regarding anticipated high perfermance<br />
of the barriers. (Refer to the Board's document for the complete<br />
When these programs/plans are Incorporated into the text, the final <strong>EIS</strong> text). The Washington. State Department of Ecology, Office of High-Level<br />
should be more specifik and expand an the "cape and degree of confidence Nuclear Management, Preliminary Draft Technical Review of the HDW-D<strong>EIS</strong><br />
placed an the activity. _ (prepared by URS Corporation) has detailed comments an Appendix M.<br />
4.2 18<br />
with waste<br />
4.1 s 1 3<br />
COMMINGLING OF COMMERCIAL AND DEFENSE WASTES<br />
The final <strong>EIS</strong> should include an appropriate statement that once a repository<br />
Is chosen, DOE will be required to write an <strong>EIS</strong> for the repository that will<br />
Include defense waste impacts. Including. monitoring.<br />
MIXED HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL/RADIOACTIVE WASTE<br />
TheImpact of mixed hazardou hemlcal/recite ive wastes is not induced in<br />
the <strong>EIS</strong>. The disposal of mixed waste material is of spatial interest due to<br />
the uncertainties associated with these waste farm. at this time. Testimony<br />
before the Forum indicated that DOE is just getting started on the mixed<br />
waste issue and that these wastes may Present significant problems.<br />
Further, the D<strong>EIS</strong> wording in <strong>Section</strong> 6.6 (Volume 11 Resource Conservation<br />
and Recery ar Act (RCRA) Is not eoneudve W public confidence.<br />
The final <strong>EIS</strong> should include a statement of commitment that disposal of mixed<br />
wastes will a mpty with State, and Federal standards in force at the time<br />
these wastes are disposed. Further, the commitment should apply W all<br />
hazardous waste.<br />
The issues raised by the Washington State Nuclear Waste Board on the DOE<br />
preliminary analysis of the performance of the protective barrier should he<br />
considered and evaluated before issuance of the final <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
LOW-LEVEL WASTE<br />
The disposal of low-level defense waste is excluded from the D<strong>EIS</strong>.. The<br />
main purpose of the <strong>EIS</strong> is to focus on high-level waste as recommended by<br />
the National Research Council. LLW and the resultant impacts were addressed<br />
in ERDA-1538. Although DOE believes. that the environmental impacts<br />
of LLW are small and past, no significant jeopardy to the environment,<br />
DOE has initiated astudy to determine whether any additional solo. should<br />
be taken; the adequacy of ERDA-1538 with respect to LLW impacts are being<br />
reconsidered.<br />
The fragmentation of LLW and KLW makes it difficult W ascertain the total<br />
defense waste disposal program. The final <strong>EIS</strong> should include in summary<br />
form: 1) the main points in ERDA-1536 applicable to LLW; 31 an Inventory<br />
of these wastes; and 3) the options available that will be taken should the<br />
study determine that additional action must b, taken.<br />
ANNOUNCEMENT TO POSTPONE WORK FOR ASECOND REPOSITORY<br />
The DOE announcement (May 36, 19861 to postponeIndefinitely site-specific<br />
work for a second repository has heightened publ ic concerns on disposal of<br />
commercial and defense waste W an extent that has seriously overshadowed<br />
discussion limited W the HDW-D<strong>EIS</strong>. Many either. now want assurances with<br />
specific information that demonstrates whether a single repository has the<br />
capacity W receive both commercial and defense waste, including a separate<br />
_trreakout showing <strong>Hanford</strong>'s defense waste contribution..<br />
CMIII A Page 3 of 9 CMIII A Page 4 of 9<br />
3.5.1.1<br />
3.5.1.56<br />
3.5.1.3<br />
2.3.1.13<br />
3.3.5.7<br />
2.1.8
M<br />
11/7 '14'7<br />
.,^EccnAIZ23 ^OE-RL<br />
out. 611966<br />
6147<br />
N1M OfrISION<br />
DOE should give serious consideration to Include th is Information in the final<br />
515.<br />
ERROR IN TABLE H.13, WASTE PROCESSING STEPS FOR THE REFERENCE<br />
uuL 61 1986 014'<br />
rm<br />
Sinu the sites are ḃVing-MZW" ln[o to determine whether additional anvironmental<br />
protection Is needed, it Is proper in the Interest of long-term<br />
safety to include in the final <strong>EIS</strong> that disposal decisions will be made on<br />
.site-by-site basis, and sites found to be too hazardous (even with the adeltional.<br />
protection) will be retrieved and processed for geologic disposal.<br />
3.1.3.26<br />
N<br />
LD<br />
(I3<br />
4.2.55<br />
3.1.4.1<br />
2.4.1.7<br />
Table H.13, Waste Processing Steps for the Reference Alternative (Vol. 2,<br />
Page H.24) in the second block under existing Tank Waste should read that<br />
the high-level (rather than low-level . of existing tank waste is immobilized<br />
as glass.<br />
SINGLE-SHELL TANK WASTE<br />
1. Testimony against in-place stabilization of single-shell tank waste covers<br />
a broad spectrum ranging from being premature to selection would<br />
result in an irrevocable decision, In-place stabilization of these wastes<br />
Is an area of uncertainty and there is need for focused research. DOE<br />
indicated that the intention for in-place stabilisation a single-shell tank<br />
baste Is to make disposal decisions on a'tank-by-tank basis and that<br />
waste found to be too hazardous Ibr In-place stabilization will he procowed<br />
for geolog ic disposal<br />
This should be d ev eloped and inc luded In the final <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
2. The NRC has proposed that 3000 NCI/gm would identify material that<br />
.qualifies as high-level waste. This standard would apply to same<br />
single-shell tanks.<br />
The final <strong>EIS</strong> should include the impacts of this proposed change In<br />
standards and its effect on the in-place stabilization alternative.<br />
3. The final <strong>EIS</strong> should Include a statement that high-level wastes mabllized<br />
in-place for single-shell tanks will meet the regulatory requirements<br />
of a repository.<br />
REFERENCE VOL. 1, SECTION 3.3,5, PAGE 3.33, PARA GRAP H CAPTIO NED<br />
The ..to. that reads as follows Is net clear as to Its relationship to usher<br />
sections in the D<strong>EIS</strong>: "That does not foreclose the option, after the completion<br />
of the tank characterization program, of developing. strategy of<br />
rZool certain hi h-activit tanks and leaving the rest.-- (Underscore<br />
a e fher sections o t e IS discuss removal of the high-activity<br />
contents from these tanks and not the removal of the tanks. This paragraph<br />
-Tres raqu clarification In the final <strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
REVISION OF RADIATION STANDARDS<br />
The DOE Is in the process of revising Its radiation standards in the vicinity<br />
of DOE fadlitles (Vol. 1, Page 4.1 and Vo l. 1. Page 6.1. Footnote "a'7.<br />
Pending development of a revised order, concentration guides presented in<br />
the current order (DOE 1981) are used In the D<strong>EIS</strong>. In response to my<br />
Inquiry on the effect of these revisions, DOE responded:"The overall<br />
radiation standards (radiation dose to people) will In effect be lowered.<br />
Changing methods of relating . co ncen tr ations of nucleon, to dose equivalent<br />
tram those of ICRP3 to ICRP26 1 30 are expected to result in permissible<br />
derived air concentrations for a. few muddles : that are larger than previously<br />
.:ad. 11<br />
This additional information should be Included in the final <strong>EIS</strong> and crossreferenced<br />
to Vol. 2, Pag e . xxxix on the planned adaptation of the HOW<br />
models to use the .newer dosimotric data.<br />
3.1.4.33<br />
3.5.5.5<br />
3.1.3.26<br />
e. Testimony Indicated the need to focus research on other alternatives for<br />
single-.h.11 tank waste. In view of the public on disposal of<br />
these wastes, the Final <strong>EIS</strong> should Include the scope of research that<br />
will be considered prior to making a final disposal decision.<br />
TRU-CONTAMINATED SOIL SITES AND PRE-19 70 TRU BURIED SOLID<br />
TRU-contaminated soil sites and pre-1979 TRU buried solid waste sites have<br />
been previously closed but are being reviewed to determine whether further<br />
action is warrantor in terns of environmental protection (Vol. 1, Page 3.9).<br />
These wastes contain $40 kilograms of plutonium.. The reference alternative<br />
does not call for retrieval and processing of the soil sites nor most of the<br />
buried s ol id waste.<br />
PARAMETER VALUES . FOR STRONTIUM FLOURIDE<br />
The D<strong>EIS</strong> states that additional research is needed to determine more realistic<br />
values for strontium flouride. IVOI. 2, Pages 1.20 and 1.33) In answer<br />
to my Inquiry on the time frame for resolution of parameter values,. the. DOE<br />
response was that they have learned that strontium flourlds Is In different<br />
form than that u se d In the D<strong>EIS</strong> making the accident risk estimates in the<br />
D<strong>EIS</strong>. significantly overstated. "As a result, more reasonable estimates are<br />
that It of the strontium flouride Is in the farm of dispersible particles and<br />
Sit the dispersible fraction is else respirable" (rather than .1008 respirable<br />
particles). The final <strong>EIS</strong> should be changed to reflect this new data.<br />
3 .5.5.7•,<br />
CMill A Page 5 of 9<br />
CMI11 A page 6 of 9
1<br />
147<br />
1-47<br />
F-s<br />
Cal<br />
4.1.11<br />
4.1.11<br />
4.2.55<br />
3.5.2.9<br />
Kd;tp/20l COE.RL<br />
JUL 31 19e6<br />
LOGIC DIAGRAMS<br />
614-7<br />
i'/M DIVISION<br />
11 The HDW-D<strong>EIS</strong> has of necessity been prepared before final optimized<br />
designs are available for all processes, and certain research and demonstration<br />
projects are necessary to be completed for the disposal options.<br />
The question that keeps risingis what Is the next step or approach<br />
that will be selected if any of these designs or technologies Pail? Are<br />
there alternatives or variables that can be considered? What are the<br />
Implkatlon3 of failure?<br />
For example. in response to my questions, several alternatives were<br />
identified:<br />
Failure Possible Alternative<br />
Barrier System In Situ Vitrification.<br />
Great Shemin. ureerforealdehyde, or<br />
vinyl ester styrene waste forms.<br />
Clinics loop coaling is being examined as an alternative in eliminating<br />
the use of cribs.<br />
Logic diagrams identifying the next beet variable or alternative to be<br />
considered would increase confidence of disposal solutions.<br />
2. Due to: 1) the fact that there are any technical issues that must<br />
be closed; 21 that the D<strong>EIS</strong> does not include all defense waste; 3) that<br />
wine work is underway or planned under the <strong>Hanford</strong> Waste Management<br />
Plan; and e) then actions are many ways interrelated and dependent<br />
upon the success of another action, the final <strong>EIS</strong> should include a logic<br />
'diagram for the sequence of events of performance that Would bit taken<br />
for confidence of not being 'locked-in" to some particular course.<br />
These alternative technologies should be described. The logic diagrams<br />
would show the rule of integration in the process and the schedules kr<br />
testing.<br />
CL05SARY<br />
There are a number of Acronyms used in the D<strong>EIS</strong> that do not appear in the<br />
glossary. For example: BNL, AGNS. ENC, EGG, PER, NFS, RLFCM, SRL,<br />
RHO, WCF, etc. The final <strong>EIS</strong> should include these ammissions to enhance<br />
readership.<br />
TRANSVERSE DISPERSION:<br />
The D<strong>EIS</strong> states that present acquirer rtoracteriilatlon permits a complicated<br />
conceptual. model an transverse dlspersim effects, but the necessary computer<br />
software is not presently available for application to the <strong>Hanford</strong> bite.<br />
(Vol. 3, page 0.32)<br />
DOE has responded that Incorporation of transverse dispersion effects Into a<br />
model would not improve the analysis of radiological Impacts and it is not<br />
planned that the more complicated conceptual model will be employed in the<br />
dedsion-making process.<br />
CMIII A Page ? of 9<br />
RLL,--: -D ,OE-RL<br />
JUL 311966 0147<br />
t . ,pe n.. ".LION<br />
The Mal <strong>EIS</strong> should f Include the remains DOE ones not plan todevelop the<br />
computer software for the additional analysis on transverse dispersion effects.<br />
EMERGENCY RESPONSE<br />
The primary responsibility for emergency response planning and capability<br />
lies with State and local governments. The D<strong>EIS</strong> names federal agencies that<br />
provide planning assistance and emergency support to cope with radiological<br />
hazards (Vol. 2, <strong>Section</strong> 1.9).<br />
The final <strong>EIS</strong>should expand <strong>Section</strong> 1.9 to include the scope of direct support<br />
provided by these agencies.<br />
SLAGGING PYROLYSIS INCINERATOR:<br />
The geologic alternative uses the Slagging Pyrolysis Incinerator (SPI) process<br />
to reduce volume. SPI is not used in the Reference Alternative.<br />
The Mal <strong>EIS</strong> should Include the reasons SPI. is not used in the Reference<br />
Alternative.<br />
CONCLUSIONS<br />
1. Several reasons exist that make it Inadvisableat this time to support<br />
one of the specific alternatives stated in the D<strong>EIS</strong>;<br />
a. the many areas that require additional research and development<br />
for needed technology to support a given alternative; and<br />
b. the Interrelationship Of separate programs that exist to deal with<br />
the different types of defense waste on the <strong>Hanford</strong> site.<br />
3. In my judgement. the D<strong>EIS</strong> supports disposal strategies and Implementation<br />
decisions for the following Waste types:<br />
e. Doubla-Shell Tank Waste [geologic);<br />
b. Retrievably Stored and Newly Generated Transuranic Waste<br />
(WIPP);<br />
C. Strontium and Cesium Capulsas fgeologic).<br />
3. The D<strong>EIS</strong> supports the need to fund further research and data collection<br />
for the following waat. types:<br />
a.. Single Shell Tank Waste;<br />
b. Pre-1910 Burled TRU-Contaminated Solid Waste;<br />
c. TRU-Contaminated Sell <strong>Site</strong>s.<br />
No alternative for these waste types should- be finalized until the effectiveness<br />
of an engineered. barrier is demonstrated, the calibration of<br />
computer models with field data manifests a high degree of confidence,<br />
and applicable waste retrieval methods receive additional review. (Although<br />
TRU-Contaminated Soil <strong>Site</strong>s and Pre-1970 TRU Buried Solid<br />
Waste <strong>Site</strong>s are considered to have been disposed of, but are being<br />
CMIII A Page 9 of 9<br />
3.4.2.24<br />
3.3.5.6<br />
3.3.5.3<br />
2.3.1.14<br />
3.3.5.3<br />
3.3.5.3<br />
3.1.3.26
Es<br />
14<br />
M0<br />
RECEIVED DCE-RL<br />
3.1.3.26<br />
3.2.4.1<br />
2.2.1<br />
2.2.9<br />
JUL 3I1 1988A61 C,<br />
(47<br />
reviewed to determine whether further action is Wi3PYHHCw terms of<br />
environmental protection, they should be revisited considering the<br />
development from actions enumerated in the preceading y sentence).<br />
4. Single-Shell Tank Waste may warrant additional NEPA review far either<br />
In-Place Stabilization or Ceologi, die,..[.<br />
S. The protection of the acquifers and the Columbia River should be<br />
paramount In disposal decisions.<br />
6. In the Interest of public health and safety:<br />
a. The final <strong>EIS</strong> should be completed on a timely basis; and<br />
b. Funding for defense waste clean-up at the <strong>Hanford</strong> site should<br />
receive high priority.<br />
R.A. Holton/EI9<br />
Us Dept of Energy<br />
Richland Operations Office<br />
P O Bas S50<br />
$iChlandf WA 99352<br />
M 1 c In a o 1 L. C l e r k<br />
.1008 Prospect A HE<br />
Olympia, WA 98586 '<br />
Jut, 11. 1986<br />
4$<br />
dui 31 1906 6 1<br />
p1NON•p101't<br />
This is a ..meant<br />
regarding the <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Waste Draft<br />
Ea y .I.m... tal Impact Statement.<br />
2.3.2.8<br />
3.2.4.1<br />
2.3.1.3<br />
2.3.1.14<br />
to 3.5.5.42<br />
V<br />
2.3.2.7<br />
3.4.3.7<br />
2.2.13<br />
3.3.4.2<br />
3.4.2.24<br />
2.3.2.9<br />
2.2,1<br />
COMMENTS MADE BY I'HE PUBLIC TO CLARENCE BARNETT AS A. MEMBER<br />
OF THE NORTHWEST CITIZENS' FORUM ON DEFENSE WASTED<br />
'(Comments are abbreviated and bring out only the salient points.)<br />
Open Roun d in Yakima Informative,<br />
Workshop in Yakima helped . to understand problems associated with<br />
Defense Waste.<br />
A Public Hearing on the D<strong>EIS</strong> should have been held in Yakima.<br />
Columbia River contamination is major concern.<br />
Repository Issue is more important than Defense Waste..<br />
All Defense Waste should be in D<strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
Need independent epidennioiaglcal study.<br />
Insufficient time to comment on D<strong>EIS</strong>. Short comment period builds up<br />
emotions. -<br />
Sablaim, net addressed in D<strong>EIS</strong>.<br />
State should manitor cleanup.<br />
Keep waste above ground so can be monitored.<br />
Put all waste In Monitored Retrievable Storage.<br />
Need strict regulations for truckers.<br />
DOE should assume more emergency response responsibility.<br />
Have panel of scientists make independent review of F<strong>EIS</strong> before It is<br />
I ... ad.<br />
Economic risk analysis needed.<br />
Safety. over long-tern, not cast, should be the major consideration.<br />
It in obvious that nmlear wastes have to be diapers etl of<br />
somawhere t even if most persons n. r proposed sites a aree going to<br />
have very s misgivings about proximity<br />
fo them. If<br />
<strong>Hanford</strong> is finally settled u P on a ..to for Disposal of this<br />
very toxic waste; I believe that the method used Should be deep<br />
burial.<br />
I have no Information regarding the details of the specific<br />
process being considered in the Geologic Disposal Alternative.<br />
However; I would like to go on Cord suggesting that the process<br />
of a .sing wastes i solid glass b leeks be used in this disposal<br />
alternative.. I understand that this is superior method due to<br />
the ..tram. temporal stability of glass (that 1s to say that it<br />
does not break dawn significantly over Lang periods of time).<br />
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.<br />
8I<br />
//<br />
1'<br />
Ni Clark<br />
3.3.1.1<br />
3.1.8.9<br />
CM111 A Page 9 of 9
z' a ^Ie 0<br />
ME<br />
150<br />
JUL 28 MM<br />
w 3.3.3.1<br />
3.3.1.5<br />
3.1.3.26<br />
OFFICE OF PROGRAM RESEARCH<br />
Hautt of Reprtxrna.iw"<br />
RECE .=`J S;O'aRL<br />
l\i_<br />
mar 29, 1986<br />
Me. Ric, gram<br />
U.H. DWarlavlt of LtargY<br />
Mehland Operatics Office<br />
Ricldancl, Wasted teas 99352<br />
Uar Mr. Holtae<br />
JUL3110 0141<br />
Willi OiViS1ON<br />
O ,smemp 1ta full. on tha isle. "Disp osal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Dabs. High-level,<br />
RYmmem,ma c, and Techc Reatse" EOEJDEIB-0111. Cie is are sy dm.<br />
,be ,,m i..^l,,, m (in additim to time required "M actioM1" alternati ) nmea<br />
altarrntivea; almost cmples gaolegic dispsms 1, cmplete in 1place<br />
atelailiretion, and a zafereaoe altacrimuW that is a mobiLation.<br />
I belie ak them should m another alGSmtive. Y. might call it e<br />
"®bisatim of them asbilatlma".<br />
USWE's om*imtim altexxwtiva, as vritta,, h ome an aXL- mothim ttr<br />
apprmact, to the air i all tans. 'lia aYd'eMS of all te ch® are eiH<br />
ahsbll5zed ]n piece w rmarmd arcs eetmarkrl for deep geologic disponal. 9m<br />
aingle-sell tazik ca2aRs vary aiid, aaar'lisg1Y, disPceition ahwld vary. m<br />
waldn^t make eve to eiOtY a taNC whidf aoemt't m^Rxin Farmfla climnl®la<br />
apd „}pa i^n.rl idea wand dozy to ixti~rorsequMt;af levels in a Few<br />
cle boomea. On the ,and call- ems texBm may haw significant ^.^•w••^" ma<br />
of 2amfi1 d^mi®1.9 and lortl'livad 1-^IOtpY.11dea.<br />
,xin ejr,,, zll tech[ sbeald be mwidared on a twee-ty-c?ea bask. Eittxr<br />
floors &.old m ffi.a¢ata mRent v i ¢' requi-rsi aamplrn3 of rant me of<br />
mtl, tame. Both raa3 •^.tf a• ami tu,-xadiot>ctive szaNraia flimis): caftent<br />
alms, be evalnatsd ani a decision made whether to mtebilles or rm e. I<br />
mime, the melt oY this appmatl, wm,le m atsbiliaitg e®e eirgle-smll tacha<br />
amt an'tyin, opisn.<br />
CYriein ptme-1970 tranA¢enlc mit es, idetifiad in thm BIIG, ehwld be a Boas "I<br />
.I.Oul , cvemixaratim. JUL this Cos+; radiomslida onnsittmtlm arch location<br />
farad ben imprnterR mince half liven are lag.<br />
,imag e you for tM rppottamity to amamE on the VETS.<br />
Blzraxaly,<br />
Etalerick e. )Ba ir, lae eara Ma allet<br />
Ibuee Earg , a Utilitim 0mandittee<br />
July 16, 1986<br />
United States Department of Energy<br />
Attn: Karen Mheeless<br />
Mail Stop FED/706<br />
Pont Office Be. 550<br />
Richland. Washington 99352<br />
Subject: Comments an Draft <strong>EIS</strong> for Disposal of <strong>Hanford</strong> Defense Wastes<br />
Dear Ms. Wheeless:<br />
CRY OF<br />
Mk Bel l. ComNalaer<br />
PORTLAND, OREGON E xldl zosw naaor<br />
Ponland Oregon gKICA-1926<br />
BUREAU OF WATER WORKS<br />
RECEn, ,- + 0E-P,L<br />
JUL 3 1 1986 !,mac<br />
`JAN DIVISION<br />
I. regret that I was not able to attend the recent public hearing in _Portland<br />
concerning the Draft Environmental Im act Statement for the Dis .sal of <strong>Hanford</strong><br />
Defense. Ni h-Level ransuran IC. and Tan Wastes. Alt ( ) ugh was out of t e<br />
country at the time of the public hearing, I would like to take this opportunity<br />
to express my support for comments submitted at the public hearing by the Mayor.<br />
other City Commissioners, and Edward Tenny, Administrator of the Portland Bureau<br />
of Water Works.<br />
1<br />
The City of Portland has gone to great lengths to ensure a safe, ample water<br />
supply for the local area. In order to continue this high level of commitment<br />
to our current and future citizens. it is essential that the region's water<br />
resources be protected against contamination by radioactive wastes. Protection<br />
Of the Columbia River must be a paramount concern in order not only to preserve<br />
the existing investment in the Portland wellfields, but also to preserve future<br />
water supply alternatives for Portland. Given the long life of the wastes in<br />
question. it seems that the adopted disposal system must be essentially free<br />
of any risk of environmental contamination.'<br />
Because of the importance of this matter to the City, I st ro nglyencourage DOE<br />
to conduct further research into the possible downstream impacts of radioactive<br />
waste leakage into the Columbia River. Please feel free to contact my office<br />
or Ed Teeny to further discuss such a study.<br />
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these co mm ents. The City looks forward<br />
to a satisfactory solution to this very important and complex problem.<br />
Sincerely.<br />
^2
e"_4 a<br />
2<br />
Is<br />
51<br />
F-'<br />
LD<br />
ro<br />
N<br />
4-<br />
4-i<br />
C<br />
O<br />
ro<br />
•r<br />
C<br />
E<br />
OUO<br />
s<br />
RECEIVED UOERL<br />
S.H. Leroy<br />
U.s. Department Of Energy JUL 31 1988-<br />
Public Affairs<br />
P.D. So. 550<br />
HIM DIVISION<br />
Richland, WA 99352<br />
Department of energy:<br />
A few Comment. an the Defense Waste D<strong>EIS</strong> produced by the<br />
DOE.<br />
The world's largest storehouse of radioactive are<br />
containing a. amount comparable to all the fall-out that has<br />
even reach this .planet is located in the pacific northwest<br />
an the banks of the Columbia River.<br />
On these rolling basalt hills, the Dept, of Defense(War)<br />
laid claim to 570 square miles of territory in 1941 for the<br />
,reduction of the world's first genocide weapons known to<br />
mankind. This <strong>Hanford</strong> .Military Reservation is still making<br />
war on the health of the surrounding environment.<br />
The by-products of the government's 40 year history are<br />
immense amounts of waste -- some of this waste so<br />
radioactive i. rill be around for 500,000 years. The<br />
governments r^cord in a Ear. cry from resolving the problem<br />
of what to do with all this toxic and highly radioactive<br />
waste.<br />
A partial inventory of the waste at <strong>Hanford</strong> one will finds<br />
-135 million gallons of high-level liquid waste<br />
produced since 1944 during reprocessing of uranium fuel<br />
cells to remove plutonium for nuclear weapons. This waste<br />
contains dozens of deadly radioactive isotopes.<br />
-some .200 billion gallons of low and intermediate<br />
liquid waste have been dumped into ponds or discharged into<br />
the soil in underground drainfields. Some of this waste<br />
contains radioactive isotopes with half-lives of 4.5 billion<br />
yearn has reached the the water table under the Sandford<br />
reservation.<br />
-another 5 million plus cubic feet of solid radioactive<br />
waste consisting of refuse and contaminated equipment are<br />
stored in covered trenches at<strong>Hanford</strong>. This practice is<br />
considered permanent disposal of these waste by the DOE. I<br />
consider this a -nuclear nitwit" version of "out of sitar<br />
out of mind' .<br />
-from the PURRS ,last the DOE dempe 9 billion. of toxic<br />
and radioactive waste by-products into cribs per year. This<br />
practice has gone co mbated for years.<br />
Eesfdes these Particular practices of the last 40 years, the<br />
American public has to endur consistent subversion of<br />
information, lying, and deceit from the government and the<br />
WE at the Sandford Nuclear Reservation.<br />
The.gevernments' secrecy policy on radiation mistakes is the<br />
Same now as it was decades ago. The AEC withheld<br />
information about radioactive liquid that had leaked out of<br />
its' underground storage tanks at Sandford nuclear<br />
installation. in a January 1959 subcommittee of the joint<br />
committee on atomic energy, a general electric official<br />
responsible for managing <strong>Hanford</strong>'s waste testified "no<br />
environmental hazard will exist as long as the tanks<br />
maintained their integrity---we have never detected a leak<br />
from any of these tank, so that we are I. turn persuaded<br />
that none has ever leaked". A year later the AEC asserted<br />
in its annual report that 'waste problems have proved<br />
completely manageable." The fact remains the <strong>Hanford</strong> tanks<br />
had started leaking two years earlier, in 1958, the public<br />
did not learn that <strong>Hanford</strong>-. tanks Were leaking until years<br />
later. Other tank leaks at unnoticed for weeks. Some of<br />
thee. leak. were 2000 gallon. , but a 1973leaked dumped<br />
115,000 gallon. of high level wset. into the soil. Total<br />
releases have been 454,000 gallons or more. Are the now<br />
double-walled stainleea steel tanks which store this highly<br />
radioactive waste.. security to p revent this highly<br />
carcinogenic fzem getting into the environment? i do not<br />
think the tanks are safe..<br />
On the subject of permissible levels of radiation, the<br />
government is consistent in discrediting and terminating<br />
research project. that may suggest all is not as well as<br />
claimed. Dr. Samuel Milhan Jr. study of more than 500,000<br />
males who died in the state from 1950. to 1971 concluded that<br />
workers at the hanford nuclear plant were more likely to die<br />
of cancer thanother Washington state males. Dr. Milhan<br />
eventually lost the funding for continued research.<br />
The government.' behavior of concealing mistake.{ issueing<br />
misleading statements, repudiation of report s that disease<br />
And death may be attributed to radiation doses, and<br />
intolerances to dissent with the nuclear indumtry must<br />
change coarse. For the public distrust is to great an<br />
obstacle to overcome.<br />
Why le it the public was not informed of the December 2,<br />
1949 discharge of 5,500 curiae of 1-131 an iodine isotope<br />
which concentrates in human thyroid p ... ibly causing massive<br />
functional damage and later . yielding thyroid moduITS and<br />
canner. By camper :son, a single release of 15 curies of<br />
2.5.5<br />
2.2.12<br />
3.1.4.28<br />
2.5.5<br />
RECEN,i3 rn -RL<br />
•^n^--x'1986 p^5^<br />
WMOIVISION
t<br />
f-<br />
-<br />
I-131 at Three Mile Island was a suspected cause of health weapons grade plutomium. The N-plant is net nary<br />
effects in human fetus.. and new-borne infants.<br />
because the U.S. military has 220,000 pounds ofcplutonium<br />
and 1000 pounds of highly enriched uranium. It seems clear<br />
Why is it the public was not Informed of the million of to me the risk to this region are more than enough for a n , 5 . G<br />
curiae of I-131 released over a ten-yea[ span f rom 1945 thru complete shutdown of the reactor. An I to trust this aging 4. V<br />
-1955. Other radioisotope., inducing rhuthenium-106 vented reactor to the hands of the DOE that is loaded with long<br />
into the atmosphere to cause skin irritations as far away as lived radioactive inventory of more than 1000 Hiroshima<br />
Spokane.<br />
bombs}<br />
My was it the public was not inform of these releases and The Dept.ef Energy should be subject to the same<br />
the potential to human health. There is strong evidence the environmental regulations in its management of chemical and<br />
Sanford officials covered-up this information. There was<br />
concern for the public safety in this time as well ae<br />
radioactive waste as is private industry. Speefically,<br />
timelines of the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act<br />
^. ' ^^<br />
concern for the public safety now: A March 1948 document<br />
(RCAA)., Superfund (CENCLA), and the Federal Water Protection<br />
contained a wen,ing from <strong>Hanford</strong> health physicist Dr. Herb Agency and the State Department of Ecology should oversee<br />
Parker indicating -The theoretical possibility of injury<br />
the DOE'S management of the military wastes. At present,<br />
developing 10 to 15 years from no e poses a serious problem^ . the DOE is both the polluter and iits own regulator. The DOE<br />
decision to drop the search for a second repository must be O e O 1 4<br />
The <strong>Hanford</strong> Nuclear. Reservation host the PURE% facility and challenged to place the military wastes into a repository. L L 1`t<br />
2.5.5 Rod waat.. Th. EPURE%rplant ithe 7th int....is. atn <strong>Hanford</strong> s onsideringatheni ofp ^the y,<br />
(NEPA) byYnot impact dropping search<br />
chemically breaks down irradiated fuel rude free a uranium for a second repository, on disposal of military wastes.<br />
reactor to Squire deadly plutonium Pu-239. The N-reactor<br />
suppliesthe -irradiated fuel rode for the PUREE plant. - Much of the anxiety that the nuclear waste now provokes -<br />
Would never have materialised if the federal government and<br />
A study released this spring in Spokane the HEAL<br />
scientific unity ty. had been candid from the beginning.<br />
O organization has documented over 10 times the amount of They Were Dort Both sised. that radioactive waste posed O . C 55<br />
particulates ip Spokane soil than average levels little or no hazard; both , insisted that the technology for L J<br />
O Pof plutonium fallout due to world-wide nuclear weapons dealing with it was proven. One glaring failure after<br />
te.tng This contradicts Mike Let m.... viewpoint that `all mother has pco.rn them incorrect. From buriel grounds to<br />
- the plutonium particles dispense before g it reaches the reprocessing proved the .experts wrong and planted seeds of<br />
reservation boundaries. Six "miles from the PURER smoke<br />
public mistrust. Public mistrust that will not diminish with<br />
.tack, It Seem&:that Mr. Lawrence is not telling the 'truth ♦ - the current attitude the nuclear industry has towards the ..<br />
people of Washington state and its envizonmeent, -<br />
October of 1984, PURE% was shut dome for one month due to a<br />
"<br />
loss of 10-13 kilograms of plutonium powder. -Six pounds of My-recommendation, is to dissolve the current DElS process -<br />
plutonium is still unaccounted for. °Mere did it go?<br />
and incorporate the public comment, ideas, and suggestion<br />
Perhaps the plutonium went up the PUREE Stack`. I have nq<br />
rather than continue with this farcicle procedure the DOE is 2.3.2.10<br />
confidence of PUREE plant Safety and waste operations: - cramming down the threats at Washington State citizens.<br />
The W-plant has a , dual purpose, It produces plutonium and<br />
generates elect, !city. It has graphite core of 1800<br />
T k<br />
l onem oW<br />
n ic than the Chernobyl hector; it is fueled by<br />
enriched anrhnd uranium, 365 tonnes when fully loaded. It is<br />
- cooled with ordinary water from the Columbia Aijvec. The 5 9e am Lane -<br />
confinement building can withstand 5 p.a.i., the Chernobyl's Edmonds, WA 98020<br />
" Contain nt structure could withstand 27 p.5.i.. The<br />
primary purpose of the N-reactor is the production of<br />
RECEIVED<br />
ME-RL°<br />
- - RECEIVED DOE-RL<br />
JUL 31 1906<br />
- - JUL 310 WMDIVISION<br />
WMDIVISION<br />
0151