EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

AR TARGET SHEET 

The following document was too large to scan as one unit, 

therefore, it has been broken down into sections. 

EDMC#: 0000003 

SECTION: 9 OF 11 

DOCUMENT #: 

DOE/EIS-0113 

TITLE: Final EIS Disposal of Hanford 

Defense High-Level, Transuranic 

and Tank Wastes

Cn7 71d 

v^ 5 

DOE/EIS-0113 (VOL. 5 of 5) 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

HE 

Hanford Site 

Richland, Washington 

DECEMBER 1987 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545

COYER SHEET 

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy 

TITLE: Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, 

Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington - - 

CONTACTS: Additional copies or information concerning this statement can be obtained from: 

Mr. Tom Bauman, Communications Division, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland 

Operations Office, Richland, WA 99352. Telephone: (509) 376-7378. 

For general information on DOE's EIS process contact: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Energy, ATTN: 

Carol M. Borgstrom, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-4600. 

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to provide environmental 

input into the selection and implementation of final disposal actions for 

high-level, transuranic and tank wastes located at the Hanford Site, Richland, 

Washington, and into the construction, operation and decommissioning of waste 

treatment facilities that may be required in implementing waste disposal 

alternatives. Specifically evaluated are a Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant, 

L"V Transportable Grout Facility, and a Waste Receiving and Packaging Facility. - Also 

an evaluation is presented to assist in determining whether any additional action 

should be taken in terms of long-term environmental protection for waste that was 

disposed of at Hanford prior to 1970 as low-level waste (before the transuranic 

waste category was established by the Atomic Energy Commission but which might 

x= fall into that category if generated today). 

The following alternatives are considered in this EIS: 1) in-place stabilization 

and disposal, where waste is left in place but is isolated by protective and 

natural barriers; 2) geologic disposal, where most of the waste (by activity and 

to the extent practicable) is exhumed, treated, segregated, packaged and disposed 

of in a deep geologic repository; waste classified as high-level would be disposed 

of in a. commercial repository developed pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy . Act; 

transuranic waste would be disposed of in the 'Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near 

Carlsbad, New Mexico; 3) areference alternative, where some classes of waste are 

disposed of in geologic repositories and other classes of waste are disposed of by 

in-place stabilization and disposal; 4) the preferred alternative, in which 

double-shell tank wastes, strontium and cesium capsules, and retrievably stored 

TRU wastes are disposed of according to the reference alternative, and in which 

decisions are deferred on disposal of single-shell tank wastes and on further 

remedial action for TRU-contaminated soil sites and pre-1970 buried sus p ect TRUcontaminated 

solid wastes (except the 618-11 site) until additional information is 

obtained on waste characterization, retrieval methods, and performance of nearsurface 

disposal systems; and 5) a no disposal action alternative (continued 

storage).

IM 

FOREWORD 

This environmental impact statement (EIS) provides analyses of environmental impacts for 

the selection and implementation of final disposal. strategies for the high-level (HLW), 

transuranic (TRU) and tank wastes generated during national defense activities and stored at 

the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington. Also an evalua t ion is presented to assist in 

determining whether any additional action should be taken in terms of long-term environmental 

protection for waste that was disposed of at Hanford prior to 1970 as low-level waste (before 

the transuranic waste category was established by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) but 

which might fall into that category if generated today). This document also addresses 

environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of 

waste treatment facilities that may be required to implement the waste disposal alternatives. 

re 

Several previous documents have addressed environmental aspects of the management of 

defense waste at the Hanford Site. The first comprehensive one, The Final Environmental 

Statement for Hanford Waste Management Operations (ERDA-1538), was issued in 1975. In that 

statement, waste management practices at Hanford were shown to protect the public health and 

safety and the environment on an interim basis. Those practices, however, were not and are 

not intended as final solutions for long-term isolation and dis p osal of high-level, TRU and 

' tank wastes. 

In 1977, the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) issued the report 

Alternatives for Long-Term Management of Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste (ERDA-77-44), 

which included preliminary cost estimates and analyses of near-term risks associated with 

alternatives considered. That document examined 27 variations on four options for the 

processing and disposal of Hanford HLW, encompassing numerous final waste forms and storage 

and disposal modes. 

In 1978, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science and 

Engineering issued a report entitled Radioactive Wastes at the Hanford Reservation: A 

Technical Review, concluding that there has not been in the past, and is not at the present, 

any significant radiation hazard to public health and safety from waste management operations 

at Hanford. The Council recommended that long-term isolation and disposal of Hanford highlevel 

waste become the main focus of waste management research and development. 

The need to include retrievably stored TRU waste within the scope of wastes to be disposed 

of, and concerns about potential environmental impacts of wastes disposed of before 

1970 as low-level wastes (before the Atomic Energy Commission established the TRU waste Category 

but which might be classed as TRU if generated today), led to enlarging the earlier plan 

that was to issue an EIS covering high-level waste only. Accordingly, on April 1, 1983, the 

Department of Energy (DOE) published in the Federal Register (48 FR 14029) a Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare an EIS on Disposal of Radioactive Defense High-Level and Transuranic Wastes 

at Hanford. 

Eighteen comment letters were received in response to the Notice of Intent to prepare 

this EIS. Ten of the letters only requested copies of the draft EIS when issued; eight 

v

contained comments regarding its preparation. The draft EIS was published during March 1986, 

and its availability was published in the Federal Register on April 11 (51 FR 12547). During 

the 120-day agency and public comment period on the draft EIS, which began on April 11, 1986, 

243 letters were received that provided about 2000 substantive comments on the draft EIS. In 

addition, oral testimony was heard on the draft. EIS in public hearings held during July .1986., 

in Richland, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Spokane, Washington. - 

Excluded from consideration in this EIS are low-level radioactive wastes in liquid and 

solid disposal sites at Hanford (see ERDA 1538). These waste sites are presently being 

reviewed under hazardous-waste regulations. Also excluded are wastes generated by decontamination 

and decommissioning of surplus or retired facilities after the year 1983 (other 

than for .those facilities directly associated with waste disposal). Those operations will be 

the subject of other National Envi-ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews.. 

The Defense Waste Management Plan (DOE/DP 0015) states of the Hanford wastes: "Immo - 

bilizationof new and readily retrievable high-level waste will begin about 1990 after 

sufficient experience is available from Savannah River's vitrification process. Other waste 

"'IIr will be stabilized in place in the 1985-2015 time frame if, after the requisite environmental 

documentation, it is determined that the short-term risks and costs of retrieval and transportation 

outweigh the environmental benefits of disposal in a geologic mined repository." 

It is necessary to understand the major differences between civilian and defense wastes 

and the prograRs to effect their disposal. Both types of waste include fission products and 

transuranic waste elements. On the other hand, the quantities of these elements, the physical 

and chemical forms of the wastes, and the technically sound alternatives for their disposal 

are markedly different. In all cases, for both civilian and defense, the final methods 

ICI _ selected will have to meet the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)standards (40 CFR 191) 

for the disposal of spent fuel- and high-level and TRU wastes. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982 mandates a procedure to select the potential repository sites for detailed 

characterization. 

A comparison of the Hanford waste inventory resulting from chemical processing of about 

100,000 metric tons of nuclear reactor fuel with that of a commercial repository containing 

70,000 metric tons of spent fuel elements is enlightening. In this comparison, the waste 

inventory from 100,000 metric tons of Hanford reactor fuel contains about 4% as much of the 

readily transportable (geohydrologically)isotopes 14C, 99Tc', and 129 I°asis contained in 

70,000 metric tons of commercial spent fuel-. It contains only 1% as much 90Sr and ' 137 Cs and 

about 0.1%.as much of the primary transuranics 239pu., 240 Pu, and 241 Am. The volume of the 

Hanford wastes is markedly larger than the civilian wastes cited above--410,000 m 3 of Hanford 

wastes as compared to 29,000 m 3 of commercial spent fuel. 

The physical and chemical characteristics of existing and potential waste forms 

considered in this EIS are highly diverse: liquid waste. in double-shell tanks, 

vitrified/canistered wastes (from processed double-shell tank wastes); sludge and salts in 

the single-shell tanks; strontium and cesium capsules that are further protected with a. 

vi

Environmental considerations regarding disposal of Hanford's retrievably stored TRU 

waste at the Waste. Isolation p ilot Plant (WIPP) (except for retrieval., processing, packaging, 

certification and transportation of waste from Hanford to WIPP, which are discussed in this 

EIS) are based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement--Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(DOE/EIS-0026). Environmental considerations associated with waste disposal in geologic 

repositories are based on information from the Final Environmental Impact Statement-- 

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste . (DOE/EIS-0046F). Alternatives to 

disposal of high-level waste in geologic repositories were described in that document.. 

Environmental considerations associated with borosilicate glass as a waste form for 

repository disposal of waste and with the construction and operation of a plant to .provide 

vitrified waste are based in part on information developed in three previous DOE documents: 

Final Environmental Impact Statement--DefenseWaste Processing Facility Savannah River Plant 

Aiken, South Carolina (DOE/EIS-0082); Environmental Assessment--Waste Form Selection 

for SRP High-Level Waste (DOE/EA-0179); and Analyses of the Terminal Waste Form Selection for 

the West Valley Demonstration Project (!WVDP-100 DOE). 

The EIS has been structured to conform as closely as possible to the format described in 

Co CEQ Regulation 40 CFR . Parts .1502.1: through 1502.18. To provide more information for the 

reader than can be reported within the text of Volume 1, more detailed information is 

;;.. 

included in 22 appendices (Volumes 2 and 3)..Figure 1 in the Introduction to the Appendices 

(Volume 2, p. xxiv) shows the purpose of each appendix and how appendices relate to each 

other and to the text of Volume 1. Lines in the margins of Volumes 1, 2 and 3 indicate the 

areas where revisions were made. Volume 4 contains agency and public comments received and 

responses to them as well as the indication of location where revisions were made to the 

draft EIS. .Volume 5 contains a , reproduction of all of the comment letters received. 

The final EIS is being transmitted to commenting agencies, made available to members of 

the public, and filed with the EPA. The EPA. will publish a notice in the Federal. Register 

indicating that the DOE has f iledthe final EIS. A DOE decision on proposed actions will not 

be made earlier than 30 days after the EPA has published the Federal Register notice for the 

final EIS. The DOE will record its decision in a publicly available Record of Decision . 

document published in the Federal Register. 

(ROD) 

viii

'Tel, 

handling container; previously disposed of pre-1970 wastes in various forms and containers; 

and finally, low-level waste products, from the processing of double-shell-tank waste, in the 

form ofgrout. 

 

' 

In accordance with the requirements of NEPA, as amended, and implementing regulations of 

the Council 0m Environmental Quality (C[V) published i 

 

4VCFKl00, this EIS was written early i the decision-making process to ensure that 

 

environmental values and alternatives are fully considered before any decisions are made that 

might lead to adverse environmental impacts or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. 

This process will also help ensure that the public is fully informed and is involved in the 

decision-making process. 

 

 

To comply with the NEPA's requirement for early preparation of environmental documentation,t 

is[l has eenpreoaredeurlyin 

thedi posul eisfnnpro es , Kswi hany major 

action, iti expected that once disposal decision i made, subsequent detailed engineering 

may enhance specific waste retrieval, treatment, handling, immobilization and/or disposal 

processes evaluated in the EIS. However, the processes evaluated in this document have been 

chosen such that, when finally implemented for any of the options, the processes would not be 

expected to result in environmental impacts that significantly exceed those described here. 

The DOE believes that bounding analyses performed in this EIS meet the requirements of CEQ 

regulations for analysis of all reasonably forseeable significant adverse impacts. 

 

o 

 

Implementation of defense waste disposal under the alternatives described in this EIS 

will be done in compliance with the letter and spirit of applicable federal and state 

environmental statutes, regulations and standards. To ensure that impacts ofspecific 

processes used during disposal implementation do not differ significantly from the results of 

the analyses set forth in this document, DOE will conduct environmental reviews of the 

specific processes as finally proposed. 0n the basis of these reviews, DOE will determine in 

accord with agency guidelines what additional NEPA documentation is required. The DOE 

anticipates that a supplemental EIS will be prepared prior to a decision on a disposal option 

for single-shell tank waste. 

This document is not intended to provide the environmental input necessary for siting or 

` 

constructing x geologic repository. For analysis of environmental impacts ^falternatives 

involving geologic disposal, generic designs for either an offsite or onsite repository were 

used. Detailed environmental documentation required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 

will be prepared before a geologic repository is sited, constructed and operated. &futore 

EIS to address site selection is expected to include a discussion of cumulative impacts of 

 

the repository program at all candidate sites, including Hanford. 

Other NEPA documentation relevant to this EIS includes the supplement to ERDA-1538, 

Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage at the Hanford Site 

(DOE/EIS-0063), and the Final Environmental Impact Statement--Operation of PUREX and Uranium 

Oxide Plant Facilities (DOE/EIS-0089). (The draft PUREX EIS with an addendum constituted the 

final PUREX EIS.) 

vii 

`

i 

CONTENTS 

Comment 

Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page 

1 Vicki McNeill, Mayor Office of the Mayor 1 

Fifth Floor City Hall 

Spokane, WA 99201-3335 

2 John R. Woodworth Box 043-550-West Fort St. 2 

Regional Environmental Officer Boise, ID 83724 

3 ban L. Kniesner 11644 SE Morrison 2 

Portland, OR 97216 

4 Kai N. Lee 2015 Federal Avenue E. 3 

Seattle, WA 98102 

5 Bruce Blanchard, Director U.S. Department of the 5 

Environmental Project Review 

Interior 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, DC 20240 

6 Bobby F. Kirk, Fire Chief 210 West Sixth Avenue 9 

P.O. Box 6108 

Kennewick, WA 99336 

7 Jeanette Taylor Rt. 1, Box 56 9 

Athena, OR 97813 

8 John Proctor Rt. .1,. Box 310-J 10 

Drain, OR 97435 

9 Dolores M. Hodge 806 South Second Ave. 11 

Walla Walla, WA 99362 

10 P. J. Oberlander,.Chairman 909 Northwest Nineteenth .Ave. 11 

M.AZAMAS Conservation Committee Portland, OR 97209 

11 Jeff Boscole 3425 W. Lake Sammamish Rd. S. 12 

Bellevue, WA 98008 

HF^ 

12 Governor Booth Gardner Olympia, WA 98504 13 

13 Gordon J. Rogers 1108 Road 36 15 

Pasco, WA 99301 

14 Trevor Griffiths 4240 S.E. Knapp St. 16 


15 Milton H. Monnier 7940 S.W. Carol Glen Place 19 

Professional Engineer Beaverton, OR 97007 

16 John E. Dennee, President .American Water Works 19 

Association 

Mid Columbia - Deschutes 

Subsection 

6780 Reservoir Road. 

The Dalles, OR 97058 

17 Joseph L. Miller, Jr., M.D. 52815 E. Marmot Rd. 20 

Sandy, OR 97055 

ix

Comment 


18 Juanita M. Wallin 115 Locust Street 21 


. 19 D. Kamala Bremer 2222 S.E. Salmon ' 21 


20 Jack W. Hirsch P.O. Box 5186 22 

Bend, OR 97708 

21 Erica S. .Rubin 2344 N.E. 19 23 


22 Susan Giese Oregon Rainbow Coalition 24 

P.O. Box 6797 

Portland, OR 97228-6797 

23 John Bartels P.O. Box 10744 25 


Cn 

;ma 

yy 

V..J 

I ^. 

24 Kathy Williams 3279 N.E. Davis 26 

Portland , . OR 97232 

25 Caroline Miller Multnomah County, Oregon 27 

Commissioner, District 3 

County Courthouse 


26 Jane A. Van Dyke.. Public Utility District of 30 

Commissioner 

Clark County 

1200 Fort Vancouver Way 

P.O. Box C-005 

' Vancouver, WA. 98668 

27 Walter C. Mintkeski 6815 S.E. 31st 31 


28 .. Marci James -. - 1638 N.E. 118th Ave. 31 


29 Dan. L. Kniesner 11644 S.E. Morrison 32 


30 Peter Frothingham 3131 N.E. Emerson 32 


31 Debra Larson Box 81 33 

Bay City, OR 97107 

32 Theodore C. Coskey 749 N. 79th 34 

Seattle, WA 981^3 

33 C. Ray Chesbrough Conservation Plus 34 

Windows, Inc. 

Cascade Business Park 

108512th Ave. Bldg. D6B 

Issaquah, WA 98027 

34 Mary Henterly- 4115 N. Stevens St. 40 

Tacoma, WA 98407 

X

C0I 

CZ 

1' 

4^, 

Comment 

Letter No. Re 

35 Vivian Holdorf 

36 (No Name) 

37 (No Name) 

38 Margy Willis 

39 Nansie Jubitz 

40 John R. Hebner, Chairman 

41 Don Bonker 

U.S. Representative 

42 Nancy Korb 

43 The Honorable Les AuCoin 

44 Dr. Leonard Palmer 

Associate Professor, Geology 

45 Edward Tenny, Administrator 

Bureau of Water Works 

46 Neil Goldschmidt 

(Oregon gubernatorial 

candidate) 

47 Barbara La Morticella 

48 Rochelle Cashdan, Ph.D. 

49 Sara L. Laumann 

50 Joseph L. Miller Jr., M.D. 

51 Patricia Morgan 

52 Mimi Maduro 

Affiliation/Address Page 

7321 39th N.E. 41 


(No Address) - 41 

(No Address) 42 

4103 S.W. 48th Place 43 


5226 S.W. Northwood Ave. 44 


Inland Empire Regional 45 

Conference 

Fifth Floor - City Hall 

Spokane, WA 99201 

3rd District Washington State 45 

207 Federal Building 

Olympia, WA 98501 

13221 S.E. Forest St. 46 

Vancouver, WA 98684 

2159 Rayburn House Office 47 

Building 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Portland State University 49 

Portland OR 97207 

1120 S.W. 5th Avenue - 54 


1220 S.W. Morrison, Rm. 625 56 


18200 N.W. Johnson Rd. 61 


3649 S.E. Yamhill 63 


Oregon State Public Interest 63 

Research Group (OSPIRG) 

027 S.W. Arthur St. 


52815 E. Marmot Rd.. 66 


615 2nd Street 66 

Oregon City, OR 97045 

1266 S.E. 47th 68 


xi

Comment 

Letter No. . Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page.. 

53 Lynn D. Frank, Director Oregon Department of Energy 69 

625 Marion St. N.E. 

Salem, OR 97310 

54 Lloyd Marbet (No Address) 74 

55 Ron Wyden, Congressman Portland, Oregon - 75 

56 Helen E. Ramatowski The League of Women Voters 77 

of Clark County, Washington 

12714 S.E. Park Street 

Vancouver, WA 9G684 

57 Jim Weaver, Congressman 4th District, Oregon 78 

58 Orvill F. Hill, Ph.D. 1510 S.E. 127th Ave. 86 

Consultant, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Vancouver, WA 98684 

+.R 

59 Mike Lindberg; Commissioner Portland City Council 87 

City Hall - 1220 S.W. 5th 


60 Dan Saltzman, Vice-Chairman Oregon Hanford Advisory 91 

Committee 

61 Richard Betsey, M.D. Portland Chapter of 93 

Physicians for Social 

Responsibility 

Oregon Dept, of Energy 

Hanford Advisory Committee 

62 Ruth Currie 10630 S.W. Lancaster Rd. 94 

N" Portland, OR 97219 

63 Russell Plaeger 3025 N.E. 36th Ave. 95 


ae 64 Norma Jean Germond League of Women Voters - 96 

224 Iron Mountain Blvd. 

Lake Oswego, OR 97034 

65 Alberta Gesould 4128 Davis St. 97 


66 L. F. Latvala 303 W. 9th Street 98 

Port Angeles, WA 98362 

67. Carole Woods Seattle King County Nuclear 98 

Weapons Freeze Campaign 

2925 Fairview E. #15 


68 Anne Bringloe, Chairman Sierra Club Northwest Office-- 99 

1516 Melrose Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98122

Comment 


69 Ruth Coffin, President League of Women Voters, 101 

Washington 

111 Monroe Center 

1810 N.W. 65th Street 


70 Al Williams, Chairman Senate Energy & Utilities 102 

Committee 

State of Washington 

71 Ruth F. Weiner Western Washington University 105 

Bellingham, WA 98225 

72 Brock Adams U.S. Senate 

2114 Fourth Avenue-Suite 203 109 


73 Anci Koppel, Co-Chair Seattle Women Act for Peace 110 

Branch of Women Strike for 

Peace 

2524 16th South 


r> 

74 Estella B. Leopold Department of Botany ill 

University of Washington 


75 Mary Mattson 7273 South 128th Street 112 


76 Opa Leopold 5608 17th N.E. 113 


77 Walbridge J. Powell 4314 Island Crest Way 114 

Engineer & Geologist Mercer Island, WA 98040 

78 Washington Public Interest 5628 University Way N.E. 115 

Research Group (WASHPIRG) Seattle, WA 98105 

79 James Acord 507 Third Avenue - Unit 914 118 

Seattle, WA 98104-2355 

80 Eva Perret 739 35th Ave. 118 


81 Paul Roberts Fusion Energy Foundation 119 

1121 - 244 S.W. - Sp-50 

Bothell, WA 98021 

82 Kevin McKeigue U.S. House of 122 

Democratic Candidate 

Representatives 

83 Gary Brill 8504 19th Ave. N.W. 122 


84 Richard H. Wood Conscience & Military Tax 124 

Campaign 

1830 24th Ave. E. 


85 (No Name) (No Address) 125 

xiii

I 

Comment 

Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address Page. 

86 Barbara Muller 615 14th Ave. E. #207 127 


87 Alan Rose 1710 Scannell Ave. 128 

. ... 


88- Josie E. Reichlin, CSJP Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace 130 

1663 Killarney Way 

P.O. Box 248 

Bellevue, WA 98009-0248 

89 Daniel L. Raphael 4823-1/2 Erskine Way S.W. 130. 


90 " Mary Voegtlin Anderson 6844 30th Avenue N.E. 131 


91 Dorothy Diehl P.O. Box 441 132 

Mt. Angel, OR 97362 

gym: 

92 Beth Buzzard 2016 E. State Ave. 133 


93 Charlotte Denniston Greenpeace 133 

11815 - 20th S.W. 


94 Art Powell 10007 - 19th S.W. 134 


95 Daniel Spatz 17 Sparrow Lane 134 

White Salmon, WA 98672 

96 Mr. & Mrs. Robert H. Ferber 9052 39th Ave. S.W. 135 


97 James Juntuner 2422 S.E. Yamhill 135 


98 Karin Gurno 6317 - 5th N.E. 136 


::N 

99 T. 0. Williams 900 North 6th 137 

Renton, WA 98055 

100 Kenneth R. Hopkins 3001 Monta Vista 137 


101 M. J. Szulinski 1305 Hains 138 

Richland, WA 99352 

102 Cornelius Lopez Route 5, Box 198 139 

Vashon Island, WA 98070 

103 James P. Thomas E. 414 Augusta Avenue 139 

Spokane, WA 992O7 

xiv

t 

Comment 

Letter No. Reviewer-- Affiliation/Address Paae 

104 Laine McLaughlin 3446 12th Avenue West 141 


105 Gerry Bennett 14416 S.E. 37th 143 


106 .. George Erb. 16705 Maplewild Ave..S.W. 143 


107 Joan Mootry Rt. 1, Box 554 144 


108 Kenneth W. Burchell Spokane, WA 99210 145 

109 Evabelle Myers P.O. Box 582 146 

Green Acres, WA 99016 

110. William Harper Houff,Ph.D. 147 

111 - Slade Gorton SH-513 Hart Senate Office 149 

14f7 U.S. Senator Building 


pptt 

cl> 

112 Dick Ellis , . Director 152 

Eastern Washington/Senator Gorton 

113 Vernon R. Hill Hamlet Rt. Box 1375 152 

Seaside, OR 97138 

- 114 Mr. & Mrs. Richard Rosenberg 3426 N.E. 19th Ave. 153 


115 Melissa J. Webster 1235 Isaacs 153 


°^^°• 116 Governor Booth Gardner Olympia, WA 98504 154 

(Presented by Curtis Eschels, 

Special Assistant on Energy 

Issues). 

117 Gretchen de Grasse 127 Whitman St. 156 


. 

118 Claudia E. Patterson Rt. 2, Box 122 157 


.119 Lisa Lyons 307B East Main Street 157 


120 Paul H. Yancy 224 N. Bellevue Ave. 158 


121 C. S. Weiler 224 N. Bellevue Ave. 160 


122 Sonia Trapani 1405 School Avenue 162 

R.R. 6 


Xv

II 

Comment 

Letter No. Rev iewer Affiliation/Address Page 

123 Frank Trapani Portland, OR 97208 163 

124 Shirley Hagman 123 E ast Maple 164" 


125 Candace Pierce 525 Bryant 165 


126 Gregory Adams (No Address) Tri-Cities 166 

127 Barbara Clark P.O. Box 1222 167 


128 Sam Volpentest Tri-City Industrial Development 168 

Executive Vice President - 

Council 

901 N. Colorado 

Kennewick, W.4 99336 

129 Andrew R. .Gardner 1212 N.E. Brazee 170 

Portland, OR 97212: 

130 Victoria A. Seever 413 S. Almon, #3 172 

Moscow, ID 83843 

i 

131 Bonnie Rathod 615 S. Washington 174 


132 Mr. & Mrs. Rodger J. Anderson 3644 N.E. 46th Ave. 174 


IvAq.. 

I 

133 Edward Tenny, Administrator City of Portland 175 

Bureau of Water Works 

1120S.W. 5th Avenue 


134 Gene Mueller, Mayor City of Lewiston 176 

P.O. Box 617 

Lewiston, ID 83501 

135 -Ruth Riordan 2347 N.E. 8th Avenue 177 


136 Frederick E. Ellis P.O. Box 462 178 

Shaw Island, WA 98286 

137 Jerrolyn Hall 218 S. Wasson 179 

Coos Bay, OR 97420 

138 J. Daniel Kinney, Jr. 703 Beacon 180 

Yakima, WA 98901 

139 Chet Orloff 3315 Northwest Savier St. 182 


140 Senator Al Bauer 49th District 182 

401-C Legislative Bldg. 


xvi 

4

Comment 


141 J. Richard Nokes 14650 S.W. 103rd Ave. 183 

Tigard, OR 97224 

142 Carl R. Johnson 4735 35th Avenue, N.E. 185 


143 Paul H. Yancey 224 N. Bellevue Ave. 186 


144 C. S. Weiler 224 N. Bellevue Ave. 188 


145 Dorothy Linn 4617 S.E. 43rd 190 


146 Shari Youngstrom Box 121 191 

Hines, OR 97738 

147 Clarence Barnett Member, NW Citizens Forum on 192 

. e Assistant Mayor Defense Waste 

916 So. 17th Avenue 


r _ 148 Michael L. Clark 1008 Prospect Ave. N.E. 197 


0` 149 Frederick S. Adair House Energy & Utilities 198 

t^_ 

Research Analyst 

Committee 

Washington State Legislature 


150 Dick Bogle, Commissioner Bureau of Water Works 198 

)~4..:,.. 1120 S.W. 5th Ave. 


151 Ray Dram, Jr. 525 Seamont Lane 199 

Edmonds, WA 98020 

152 Janet J. Barleman Religious Society of Friends 201 

(Quakers) 

4312 S.E. Stark St. 


153 Byron Hunt, D.O. 643 Pearson 202 


154 Eric J. & Marilyn B. Lindell 7028 11th N.W. 202 


155 Busse Nutley 49th District 203 

State Representative House Office Bldg., Room 316 


156 Dick Nelson 32nd District 205 

State Representative 

House Office Bldg. 


157 Bill Dempsey 325 N.W. Bailey 208 

Pendleton, OR 97801 

xvii

Comment 

Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation /Address Page.. 

158 John F. Walenta 420 N. 39, Apt. 303 210 


159 Heather McIntosh 11232 - 11th Ave. S.W. 211 


160 Margretta McIntosh 11232 - 11th Ave. S.W. 212 


161 Aileen Jeffries P.O. Box 295 212 

Winthrop, WA 98862 

162 John Mabrey, Mayor City of the Dalles 214 

313 Court Street 


I^ 

I 

w0, 

P7 

C`,1!', 

163 Faith Mayhew Affiliated Tribes of 216 

ATNI Executive Director 

Northwest Indians 

1425 N.E. Irving, Suite 102 


164 Frank Dixon Northwest District Assoc. 218 

President 1819 N.W. Everett, #205 


165 Douglas McIntosh 903 Grant Avenue S. 220 


166 Helen C. Bushman 4835 S.W. Chestnut Pl. 221 

Beaverton, OR 97005 

167 Lynn W. Baker 3938 N. Overlook Blvd. 221 


168 John L. & Gloria Murphy 6546 - 37th N.E. 222 


169 Susan B. Johnson 1501 S.W. Elizabeth St. 222 


170 Julie Ann Boyle Fruitland, WA 99129 223 

171 M. W. Alsworth, Manager Department of Energy 225 

of Reactor Safety . 

625 Marion St. N.E. 


172 Sue Watkins, Manager Port of Kennewick 247 

Kennewick, WA 99336 

173 Carol C. Hansen City of Vancouver 250 

Management Analyst 

City Hall, 210 East 13th St. 

P.O. Box 1995 

Vancouver, WA 98668-1995 

174 Tim Connor Hanford Education Action 251 

Staff Researcher 

League 

South 325 Oak Street 


xvii1

J 

Comment 


175 Charles P. Schade, M.D. Multnomah County Oregon - 258 

Health Officer 

Department of Human Services 

Disease Control Office 

426 S.W. Stark Street 


176 David Shively 606 Jefferson 260 

La Grande, OR 97850 

177 Dawn Y. Sumner - P.O. Box 107 278 

Index, WA 98256 

178 S. Timothy Wapato Columbia River Inter-Tribal 282 

Executive Director 

Fish Commission 

975 S.E. Sandy Blvd., 

Suite 202 


179 F. S. Bayley 900 University St. 6A 288 

Seattle, WA 98101-2728 

180 Roger C. Brown, Ph.D., CHP Rt. #1, Box 1629 288 

Benton City, WA 99320 

181 Patricia M. Carpenter Rt. #1, Box 1799 289 

& Family Hermiston, OR 97838 

182 Jalair L. Box 1231 N.E. 92nd St. 290 


183 Richard D. Moore, M.D. 53236 E. Marmot Rd. 291 


184 John V. Evans Office of the Governor 291 

Governor 

State Capitol 

Boise, ID 83720 

. 

185 E. Zahn 295 Fleet 292 

Port Ludlow, WA 98365 

186 Jennifer Paine North Olympic Peace 293 

Fellowship 

890 Mount Angeles Road 


187 Diana Bradshaw Audubon Society of Portland 294 

5151 Northwest Cornell Road 


188 Rena M. Strahl 9367 S.W. Morrison St. 297 


189 George Halekas & Family. Star Route 298 

Wauconda, WA 98859 

190 Carolyn L. Siebe 1708 West Brown 300 

Pasco, WA 99301 

191 Ann Bradford Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 301 

XiX

Comment 

Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address. Page 

192 Victor Atiyeh Office of the Governor 301 

Governor 

State Capitol 


193 David J. Tauben, M.D. 901 Boren, Suite 1776 302 


194 Alan Wasserman 1512 Fruitdale Ave. 304 

Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 

195 Delores Porch 3245 S.E. 136th Ave. 305 


196 Pam D. Gardine 7846 Houser Lake Rd. 305 

Post Falls, ID 83854 

197 Nick Arnis P.O. Box 604 306 


uN 

198 Audrey Moore 53236 E. Marmot Rd. 307 


199 Pamela C. Behring 1418 E. 13th 307 


200 Christy A. Crandall 2134 N.E. 51st St. 308 


201 Marilyn Couch 1705 N.W. 32nd 309 


202 Marilyn Lohr 5502 S.E. Firwood 311 

Milwaukie, OR 97222 

203 Carolyn Hempstead 24021 S.W. 374 Street 313 

Enumclaw, WA 98022 

204 Gary Bickett 15105 Twin Fir Rd. 314 


205 Peter Ford 704 S.E. 15th 315 


206 Norm Buske SEARCH Technical Services 315 

HCR 11 - Box 17 

Davenport, WA 99122 

207 Robbie Earon Salem Audubon Society 318 

Conservation Chair P.O. Box 17873 


208 Philip L. Bereano E.I.C.P. FH-40 319 

Associate Professor 

University of Washington 


209 Al Mangan W. 2122 Dean 321 


xx

Comment 

Letter No. Reviewer Affiliation/Address- Page 

210 Jo Broadwell Students for Nuclear 327 

Awareness 

705 Division 


211 Ida Mae Hamilton Rt. 4, Box 132 333 

Vashon, WA 98070 

212 Tom Heston P.O. Box 95722 333 

Seattle, WA 98145-2722 

213 Merryl Woodard 1580 Skyview Lane N 1 334 

Hayden Lake, ID 83835 

214 Margaret D. Strachan City of Portland 334 

Commissioner of Public 

1220 S.W. 5th 

Utilities Portland, OR 97204 

215 Yakima Indian Nation c/o. Russell Jim 337 

Nuclear Waste Program 

P.O. Box 151 

Toppenish, WA 98948 

216 David Burroughs, President Save the Resources Committee 391 

P.O. Box 692 

Port Townsend, WA 98368 

217 Bernard J. Coughlin Gonzaga University 395 


218 Dennis C. Illingworth R.S. Wasco-Sherman 456 

Supervising Sanitarian 

Public Health Department 

400 East Fifth Street 

Court House Annex A 


219 Betty McArdle 3740 S.W. Comus St. 457 


N 

220 Terri L. Barfield 817 - 14th Way 462 


221 Gerald H. Bosch 648 S. Booker Rd. 462 

Othello, WA 99344 

222 Kifar Yosemite 1204 Eighth, Apt. 4 463 


. 

223 Warren A. Bishop, Chair State of Washington 463 

Nuclear Waste Board 

Mail Stop PV-11 


224 Thomas L. Milne Southwest Washington Health 560 

Executive Director 

District 

Vancouver/Clark County Health 

Center 

P.O. Box 1870 

2000 Fort Vancouver 'Way 

Vancouver, WA 98668 

xxi

Comment 


225 Marilyn Christofferson 817 14th 'Way 561 


226 John R. Christofferson 817 14th Way 562 


227 Karen Cotton Silver Beach 562 


228 Marilyn Hales 412 Sherman Avenue - 563 


229 Heidi M. Edinger S. 2335 Silver Beach 563 


230 Robert Rose Greenpeace Northwest 564 

4649 Sunnyside Ave. North. 


231 - William H. Burke, Director Confederated Tribes of the 568 

Umatilla Nuclear Waste 

Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Study Program P.O. Box 638 

Pendleton, OR 97801 

232 Representative Dean Sutherland Legislative Building 588 

17th District Olympia, WA 98504 

233 W. F. Lawless Paine College 589 

.Assistant Professor 

1235 15th Street 

of Mathematics Augusta, GA 30910 

234 Nez Perce Tribe Council of Energy Resource 605 

Nuclear Waste Policy 

Tribes 

Act Program 1580 Logan Street, Suite 400 

Denver, CO 80203 

235 Mari Hoffmann Nelson 4716 Pleasant Hill Rd. 623 

Kelso, WA 98626 

236 Mr. & Mrs. Goodwin W. Hardin 44405 So. Coast Hwy. 623 

Neskowin, OR 97149 

237 Colleen Murphy 815 36th Ave. E 624 


238 Dale R. Evans. U.S. Department of Commerce 625 

Division Chief 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Adm. 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

Environmental & Technical 

Services Div. 

847 N.E. 19th Avenue, 

Suite 350 


xxii

I. 

y 

Comment 


239 Robert E. Browning, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 626 

Division of Nuclear Material 

Commission 

Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 

240 Dan W. Reicher, Attorney - Natural Resources Defense , 638 

Council 

1350 New York Ave., N.W. 


241 David Cottingham U.S. Department of Commerce 646 

Ecology and Conservation 

National Oceanic and 

Division 

Atmospheric Adm. 


242 Robert Alvarez Environmental Policy -.647 

Director, Nuclear Project 

Institute 

218D Street, S.E. 


. 

243 David G. Davis _..U.S'. Environmental 689 

Acting Director 

Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities Washington, DC 20460 

V 

xxiii

Processing of Written Continents 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This volume has been prepared in compliance with Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations that provide for the consideration of comments received during the agency and 

public comment period (40 CFR 1503.4 and 1506.6). This volume contains copies of the 

243 letters sent to the Department of Energy (DOE) by state and federal agencies, interested 

groups, and individuals during the 120-day public comment period in 1986. 

Notice of availability of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Disposal of 

Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Waste, hereafter referred to as the draft 

EIS, appeared in the Federal Register on April 11, 1986. The Federal Register notice invited 

comment on the draft EIS within the 120-day comment period which began April 11, 1986, and 

ended August 9, 1986. 

Over 1,600 copies of the draft EIS were distributed to individuals and groups including 

reviewers of the April 1, 1983, Notice of 'Intent; state and federal agencies; legislators; 

public libraries and the media. In addition, over 6,000 summaries of the draft EIS were distributed 

throughout the Northwest. 

,gt, 1.1 PROCESSING OF WRITTEN COMMENTS. 

At the beginning of the public comment period, a process was established to receive, 

document, and prepare responses to written public comments. Each letter, upon receipt ,. was 

assigned an identification number (the large bold number stamped in the upper righthand corner 

of each letter facsimile page in this volume). 

The letters were reviewed and specific comments within each letter were identified. 

Each comment was assigned a number according to topic. Over 100 topics, which addressed DOE 

policy, technical and editorial issues, were identified and compiled into 10 major groups, as 

organized in Volume 4 under the following headings: 

1. Civilian repository 

2. Defense waste program - 

,,.^.»,,. 3. EIS scope and preparation 

4. Applicable laws and regulations 

5. Data base and facilities 

6. Affected environment 

7. Disposal alternatives and technologies 

8. Short-term impacts 

9. Long-term impacts 

10. Organization and presentation. 

Some of the letters focused on one topic and contained only one or two comments. Other 

letters, however, addressed a broad range of issues. Frequently, a particular issue was 

raised in a number of different letters. In these instances a single paraphrased comment was 

developed to represent the common concern of these letters and a single response was provided 

in Volume 4. 

xxv

Finding Responses to Comments 

Figure 1 shows how the comments were handled from receipt to inclusion in the final EIS 

Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4, 

Topic Key 

Policy Areas Issues - 

Comments fir.. Responses — 0 Volume 4 

Topic . Key 

Comment Technical Areas Issues Action -- Volumes 

Letters Comments 1 g and 3 

or Revision 

Editorial Action -- Editorial 

Comments 

0 Correction of Text, 

Tables or Figures 

Volumes: 

0 1, 2 and 3 

FIGURE 1. Flow Diagram for Treatment of Public Convent Letters 

1.2 FINDING RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

C1 

l,. 

All 243 comment: letters were photostatically reduced and reproduced as received and are 

included in this volume of the final EIS.- A numerical index has been provided in the front 

of this volume to identify the individual or organizations who submitted each comment letter. 

A tracking system has been devised to facilitate determination of how a particular passage 

in a comment letter was responded to in Volume 4. Each paraphrased comment in Volume 4 

is assigned a number; these numbers appear in the margins of the Volume 5 letters to identify 

the passage or passages corresponding toparticular comments in Volume 4. In this way, every 

comment contained in the letters can be traced to at least one (and sometimes more than one) 

paraphrased comment in Volume 4. 

1.3 REFERENCES 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1985. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

40 CFR 1503 (Council on Environmental Quality), Commenting. 

40 CFR 1506 (Council on Environmental Quality), Other Requirements of NEPA. 

xxvi

s a 10 4 0 1 

001 001 

N 

MG? ], "86 

RECEMD 

MAY 13 1986 

rJ to Holton/EIS 

U. 5: :èpartncut of Energy 

Ric.. gad operations Office 

P, v. :•x 550 

...._ tsl, WA 99352 

Oatx' Mr. Holton: 

NCMI A. MCNCHA, MAYOR 

awAn c,w 

4 7S 

C 

J ® ^ 

0 

ÔLh0E0 t o le. 

»kane City Council is Concern.:d about the defense waste 

ca :::ly stored at Hanford and has instauuted our staff to make 

Ce:Nful review of the ehvirm,wen`.al i,.a t statement recently 

is .ad. Follow'^g ' i review we unanimously adopted the 

ac::bched vesolutir..n`',. 96-38. 

- I:^nse enter this Smrmal resolution in your records and call upon 

., kt 3nytUm for further cpmment. 

W-..: preCiate 'Yi:e difficult task you must face in Pealing with 

s oh complex -r, :nicai issues, but hope you realize that Spokane, 

b-: of hte Lory and geography, is a population concentration 

equal t: that of to y State of Wyoming in which the major 

t:a::epox'a`.Su:: co.fil.r. lie atop a sole source aquifer, in front 

c_ three naspitala cad a high school, old passes through the 

c,c:csr of the la. g,st urban concentration between Minneapolis and 

Sa, ae. We .. a deeply concen:ed about transpo rtation of all 

hsza ,duus materials, •.•:eluding Especially nuclear waste, because 

of that unique geograp,dc situation. 

Sin;erely, 

4.4'^ '^('^ 

VSO:fi HcNeill 

Mayor 

p9..ic.56 

Y E S 0 L D T I 0 N NO. 8 6- 38 

WHEREAS, the Department of Energy hoe issued its. Draft 

Enviroamental Impact Statement on disposal of defense .waste 

currently stored at Nanfordp and 

WHEREAS, the two basic . 'options are to continue to attire 

the are ... t and future nuclear seats at Hanford or to ship it 

elsewhere; and 

WHEREAS, continued storage at Hanford mean. the transporting 

mean of future defense ..clear of.waste to Hanford and storage elsewhere 

the transporting existing defense nuclear waste from 

and 

WHEREAS, any transportation of radioactive material poses 

some danger; and 

WHEREAS, transportation through urban creates more 

risk than through lees densely populated areas, and 

WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Indicates 

that the Department of Energy will make available money to ensure 

adequatemergency response and that federal support is also 

available a free -Federal Emerges, Management Administration, 

Environmental Protection Agency. Food and Drug Administration. 

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and 

WHEREAS, local goveremen[s bear the ultimate responsibility 

for emergency response plan. i.g; -- NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY 

RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SPOYANE: 

1. The Departm ent of Energy is urged to employ" the most F q F r; v 

favorable technological to solidify and ^store hazardous J L 

.at.. at their point of origin, and. 

2. The Department of Energy is urged to choose that *'time F v rl . q 

which creates the least risk and requires the least amount of L L 

nationvide transportation of defense waste, end 

3. The Department of Energy and ether federal agencies 

are urged to make available to local emergency r.a ... me providers 

the support promised in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.. 

Adopted by the City Council May 5. 198.6../. 

App d ea to my 

3.4.2.24 

Aasiatsnt City At 

",'a aF 1XE M/.YOR/FlFn1RMR rpY a Act, .W E. aF9'wwnms M1A61/^!m),#]AS

002 003 

Dot 

RECEIVED DOE•RL. 

MAY 21 IM 

wMDrvis IoN 

isa3 a'v2 

//^ ^ S•E, /I'i cv-h,Snh 

Pc/-t/aA^^ OR' 97x/6 

c _ United States Department of the Inte rior 

BOREAu OF RECLAMATION 

iEDER^L'a ILDINC, 3. 0Ġa'0.iNM'3!' - 

ieux,111 

PIN 150 

x120.2 

R^ qîÊ> q/>C p 

i0. WND DOEAL 

ET MAY 21 gas 

WMDIVISION 

A.,C-rf lYa Âo h . /C / 

u s n^^^ o ^ ch e/^y /2,^:>l/ K ^ ^,^^RâH^ 

MAY 15 sm 

N 

Rich Hot WETS - 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Richland Operations Office 

P.O. Box 550 

Richland, Washington 99352 

_ 

. `T"'"3^f 

?!'La, ./ 9 6• 

.,,>^^ê ,^^.^ 

c^^ u^-^ ' .7A .o*t-^--w,^^./^^-a-// 

^,z.^CC•C?y êsm^ in^ .r.B-wi..snc-„^ î ^+Ca-'hc-P-B^^Fi 

Dear Sir 3.3.1.1 

2.3.2.12 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Disposal of Hanford Defense High- 

Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Benton County, Washington (ER 86/612). has 

been reviewed by appropriate personnel within our organization, and we have no 

objections to the content of the document. Please let us knoll' if we can be of 

further assistance in the review process. 

Sincerely yours, 

3.3.1.4 

Officer 

CC: Commissioner, Washington, D.C. (Attention: W-150) 

3.3.5.4 

3.1.8.13 

2!]A+^'CtYL.^ (' i ba•cL-2r^ /9/J_^- -^7L ^^ 2.. m^C..

Ea 

--Z -- 

003 004 

oea 

a.nn,om 

4u'RR 

smn 

OD 3 Pq Vj- 

m:u w 

net W. Lee 

2FIX^f@TeVaThrenue E., Seattle. W.shi.9t n 1¢ 

3 1 8, 13 

' ,oet^ -'CIC 

f. ne 19R 

kon. John Herrington 164 

Secretary of Energy 

Am 

^^ 1r > ti d,^c o-,^^ D L ^C f:la - - D_S. De ertment of Energy ixi^^ 

n 7// qAn_ Yoshi eg^Pn gC 20555 

/sieve q,, anl,Osc

l 004 

Secretary Herrington 

9 June INN 

Secretary Herrington 

9 June 1906' 

2.5.5 

2.2.1 

2.2.9 

2.2.9 

2.2.9 

2.2.9 

2.2.9 

2.2.7 

3.1.4.30 

reasonable line of argument is unsustainable led ayy in significant part 

because of the poor record at Hanford and other 00^ instal latlons. Those 

charged with the stewardship of the notion's largest inventory of 

radioactive waste have done a pwr Job. OOE's plans for future stewardship 

are accordingly susyact. Remedial action will not change public 

perceptions overnight. But the damage done by history will not diminish 

until cleanup is underway at Hanford. 

In sum, there is no substantial ar9unent for the no-action 

alternative as a permagnent course of ac ts on; theeyre has been far too much 

cy difficult, but 

I e share it ha thedvimNimpl ftp isit dra 

to fssuing 

EIS: the time to e 

started is now.. 

once Fundin gy . The cost estimafes in the draft EIS are both large and 

rta .9 van the extensive engineering still to be carried out. Even 

the least costly action alternative, however, is priced at $2 billion, a 

figure that my prove to be conservative. 

The high cost of cleanup has blocked remedial action at Hanford for a 

Ions time. That hurdle is no lower now. surely, with large federal 

deficits add increasing yressure an defense appropriations. Hanford 

cleanup still competes with the GOO-shiNavy, deficit reduction, and other 

national VVriorlties. Can any programmatic decision resulting fr om the ITS 

be funded2 

While the one-time cast of cleanup is high, that is an inappropriate 

perspective to Co ke on a pro ct that w 11, in any event, take more than a 

decade to complete. I urge OOE A to explore with Congress the establishment 

of a defense waste trust fund, setting aside a fixed sum each year to 

pay for activities at Hanford and other federal facilities share past 

practices I require remedial action. Alternatively a fixed percentage of 

he defense nuclear production budget could be pa {d into the trust fund 

each year, with the ay Mutionment set to enable timely completion of 

cleanup stall federal installations. 

The trust fund app roach would p ro vide g re ater assurance that the 

cleanup program can be Brought to a successful conclusion. Moreover, ta the 

smaller annual appropriations Into the trust fund would avoid s rk 

tradeoffs. 

Much additional analysis needs to be done before a trust fund can be 

Proposed legislatively. Nonetheless. the issue of financing cleanup should 

pe considered at this point. Otherwise, there is a real possibility that 

actions will be started but not completed because of cost; that sequence of 

events could, in turn, substanttallf magnify the environmental impact of 

any decision reached through this EIS. 

Standards farmimeo circumstances. Under any of the alternatives 

that wou .N. ra sac ve ma erla TSTTn place. one could face a striking 

anomaly. If a high-level .safe repository were located at Hanford, one 

would nave long-1 l ved radionuclides buried at great expense 3,000 feet 

below the surface, while waterial of similar long-term hazard would be left 

30 feet below ground at the defense waste sites. This anomaly cannot be 

cured short of the Costliest option, excavating the single-shell tanks; 

even then complete clean. p cannot be assured. I believe it sensible, 

accordingly, to tackle to issue head on in the final EIS. 

The essential point is that long-lived wastes at federal facilities 

comFri se a ..a unique Is ac So lon as the regulatory regime in force since 

1970 at inuesq it whposhe s oul be impossible 

for t conditio 

created anew.-it regulatory scheme assumes, however, nsatwestes rWdrii l Ee. 

created and handled in ways compatible with regulatory objectives. TMs is, 

not true of the wastes at Hanford,. hovever. Pttemptin y to restore nearsurface 

Conditions near the single- shell tanks to a state compatible with 

today's regulatory standards may be impossible. economically 

infeasible, managerially imprudent. or techni all al 

At the current state of technical knowledge, however, neither the 

ultimate level of cleanuC attainable nor the cost of aproaching or 

achievin g this level is known with confidence. For tha t reason, selecting 

any single action alternative appears insppropr;ate since the basis of a 

sound c nice is not .Yet developed. Enough in on does seem to be in 

hand, however, to rule out the no-action alternative. This partial 

decision can and should be made. now. 

- 

In addition. it may be useful to set an upper bound on 

occupational exposure resulting from cleanup, for the purpose. of guiding 

additional work. 

With that policy in place, cleanu p should begin, with 

ri_m..taa projects to prepare the Sr and Cs catsules for geologic 

Pffi —fo'excavate watt. from a near-surface tank; and to stabilize 

waste We ear-surface. tank. The ob j ective of these experiments wouldbe 

to improve WE'S understanding of the engineering and cost implications of 

the rated al paths available. 

The results of those experiments should then be discussed in a public 

document updatin g this EIS. public comment on that document, from the 

state of Rashtn9ton and other interested parties. should then form the 

basis of an another decision. That decision could, in turn, extend. 

experimental work in directions guided by experience. - 

This approach differs from the one implicit in the EIS process in 

three important resVects. First, implementation would begin without a 

final decision on tits remedial option to be chosen so that experience can 

influence future decisions. Second, those future decisions .would be 

subject to public review at decision points, the first of which wo uld be 

specified in the final EIS. Third, an important objective of remedial 

action in this initial stage is to improve our understanding of 'best 

available technology' for cleanup, rather th.n to proceed. as if that 

technology were known. 

The approach recommended here assumes that learning is transferable 

to later stages of cleanup, and that the pace of learning will be rapid 

enough to result in more effective dean.N lower occupational exposures, 

and lower costs. It is sea tY to believe that lessons will be learned from 

proceeding with cleanup. It is less clear that learning will be rapid, nor 

that lessons will be applied. That is why public review at later 

milestones isimperative so that confidence in DOE's technical program can 

betested and (one hopes] augmented. 

The seeing target of best available technology raises the Ossibility 

of revisiting tanks and other facilities cleaned up in earlier pRsacs of 

the program. Such repetitions should not beruled out. It is Worth 

noting, however, that setting a guideline on occupational exposure yeerr 

increment of environmental hazard reduction would establish a reasonable 

imit on repea e c eanups. a s ecay se. as the technology improves, 

2.2.11 

3.3.4.1 

3.4.1.1 

3.3.4.1 

2.3.2.3 

2.5.3 

2.5.3 

2.5.3 

2 

. 3 -

,y 

I 

F 

'S. 

on 

^ g 

"' 

4d 

'.+A 

0 

0®4 Q®5 

yrn 

Secretary Herrington. 9 June 1986 

,. 

United States Department of the Interior 

RECEIVED DOE-RL 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

the incremental benefits Of ep ea up should decline. A risk-benefit 'f',. WASHDIGTON, D.C.=40 rep .^ 4 

comparison of the value of re peated 

ted cleanup wilt accordingly set a - 

2.5.3 pramatic stopping rule: some c fill be riskier than the best 

technology can make them, but the risks bringing them to the best ER 861612 

attainable state outweigh the risks of leaving them as they ere. 

There is a likelihood that this incremental risk-benefit comparison. 

if applied to the existing situation. mould lead to the no-action Mr. Rich HoltaN®S 

alternative. That oath is precluded. however, by the policy arguments made U.S. Department of Energy 

above, concernin55 the broader implications of walking away from the Hanford Richland Opere tio. m Offlee 

2 C O legacy. Proceed i ny with implementation in the experimental mode suggested 

. 

p,0. Sox 55U 

5 . 3 here permits affected interests to explore with DDE the appropriate balance 

of risk and benefit as experience is gained. 

givh and, Washington 99352 

Dear Mr. Holten: 

ALG 2 I 

WMDIVISION' 

(A 

DOE is to be congratulated for Moving forward on an effort to clean 

The Dcpartmait of the In up Nanford. .The support of the states of Meahington and Oregon, antl the 

terior lens reviewed the d ra ft onvWnmental impact stetament 

Indian tribes whose ceded lands are affected, is fa Disposal of Hanford essential. if the cleanup ftf g b-Leve L Traosurenic and Tank Wastes, Benton Coon LY• 

is to succeed. That localsupport must be built in the difficult political Waspitgmn, and has the following comments. 

environment created b the commercial high-level repository program. Two 

methods of building that su yyort are discussed above: a defense waste Oeneral 

trust fund, to increase confidence that federal financing of cleanup will 

continue; and an experimental approach to implementation, which permits 

identification of lea gues In the 1960'1 the Atomic Ene Cemmisgon frequently 

that radinaetive wage 

learned and consensus-building on hew to proceed r6Y suggested 

next. 

could he isolated for tens of thousands of years at a surface disposal site by relying ou 

The need htl to act wd Milo confidence is the 

messy9e of'the draft £IB building consensus an 

. IL should be the guiding theme of the 

Mines actions selected.. 

cc: Governor Booth Gardner 

Mon. Russell Jim 

Mr. Michael Lawrence 

Sincerely, 

• e 

Thai Kni H. N.Le 

that during Our short recorded h istory aiglneered app roaches to the isolation of anymhg, rye 

much less such hesard oes materiel+, have not P roven W be re liable for pari nds sutftet out 3.3. 4 8 

to amble radiation emisalon levels of rodfunu,itdes m decay m an immvu ous level. h, 

respoise to these concerns, the co nsent of disposing of high-level andrew tran k, (TRU) 

wages in a deep geologic repository was ban. This co nc ept De based on the p ro m is e List 

Montauk, formations an -favorable hyd ro logic. oberaetaiatics; whin combined with 

Into 

engineered borriere, would f orm multiple barriers to the release of the disposed wages 

the e 

nv ironment Yoe more than 10,000 years and reduce me possibi lity of !amen 

mvuslod in me d istant futu re . 

Even though me re has been extensive Wort &voted to me location of a "Hold. 

geologic repository f or OWED n gene ra ted radioeetive wastes In me la g decade, the tack 

he for f ro m complete. Th is k sane i ndication of the complexity of me Look end the 

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 

sa fely disposed. Us Department of Energy (DOE) soggegs that similar wa ges at 

Hanford c ou ld be disposed near le nd surface wig ioolati,n dapendent solely on 

engincered bariere and on now, through what Is, at .present, about 200 feet of 

unsaturated sgtr send, end Mee t, The Department of Me In t er i or conside rs Ink 

sugges tium to be without sufficient fumigation. 

The Pronosed Ac tion 

Prom the sentent of the draft statement, i nc luding appeadlOes, and f rom discussions wig 

DOE et Stodda rd, It would Mppem that ecit. With einie lb ME is prepared to move. 

Moved perta in b astest, di

.. __....__..__. 

005 

i 1, 

In 

3.1.4.1 ma il ai s 

3.3.5.4 


Mr. Rich Holtenius tr ip 24 M 2 

WM DIVISION 

oombi mtian4bil0ml alter ative, the wastes Will be treated) a medhg re the type of 

Dmitty N which the waste Is stbrotl, rot by mdieHOn level. For example, wastes atarN 

I. dahlesaâ police and rawly gmereted tank waneswill be d isposed of in 9a100. 

repositories, aM wastes stored in single- all tanks wi ll be disposed on Bite and buried 

beer aorface. However, the wastes, whether May we stored N airgle-meâ Or dble- a 

t appear to contain almost identi cal types erg amour , of radionuc lides. 

Apparently, ale method of dispoed as rot dependent upon the eareeterietics of Me 

wanes but rp.. lair ram of retrieval. Additional Wadies should be implemented aM 

otgoitg Studies co mpleted before any na tions we recommended far them al of singlesa 

â tend, warm, pre-1940 TRU parted wastes, and contaminated sU sites. T he se 

studies should md rem nume rous ismes such as in fi l tr ation ra tes, fluid movement In the 

unaturwted xda , radimeelide and camil a ea t port b y surface water, rumerical model 

davelopmmt, iamb rates of wane farms, retrieval methods for tank wastes and TRU 

dried ..at., ane election of hew wane terms. 

no statement falls to ideattfy the mix ed wane (radioactive and mmadime tive toxic 

1 c hemical wastes) inven t or y at to Hmfohl site. Rnselede of m used waste 

oral gmb ft]ogic smen. inn dispassion of the Bpologicndis Mobility ernai the 

dra ft st atem en t i ndicates tat most of the radi oac tive wastes from the damle-sbe â 

tenke wi ll be .remov ed a nd troaM ... od to a deep gmIWic repositaryt however, doubleshe 

ll tank residents ineludi, wane treatm ent chemicals will be buried near the surface 

at the Hanford site. The caraeteristics of these residuals sh ould be defined, (i.e., are 

they clemifi ed as low-level wastes) bef or en 

e the DOE recommends a dvp al approach fa 

Near resddmis. 

3.1.6. 1 a 

characteristics wiLL be 

3.3.2.5 

The "andices, matte nhg supplem entary materiel f ar Volume 1, we more bdnm rative 

.bat DDE% pla a then Is t he mein body of the statement end demrlbe uncertainties N 

estimating effeeta of different processes eM efapafll techniques and redio4,gical 

exposure. The appendices and discussion win-DOE (Richland) lead a to co nclude tat 

DOE ie at Prepared to p ro ceed a either re trieval m implace stabi lization of gottashe 

ll te al, ..sine or pee-1990 TRU cried .flares. There appear to be tar many mop ose. 

manna red with efthcr ac tion. Retrieval need trea[mmt t ealm.1. ins seemnc . uerta in. 

The wanes arc at adequately eltarmterized. The physical mg chemical stabi lities of 

the wastes we at adequately Kneen. The perf or ma nc e and stabi lity of Proposed 

.renewed barriers are n erta in. Dale ere iredw equ. a Infiltration rates. Amiuctle 

mmeriical moda ls on unsaturated now and tr ansp or t are iudequ.le bon in theme and N 

y 

J e 1.1 e 1 com putational teeaque. The re fo re to draft sta tem ent does at p rovide adequate 

Informati on to accurately assess any of Ste altsmatives f or d isposal of Trensonnic and 

3.2.4.3 

Took Waste. The final state m ent should evaluate the aMbloeW research waidrot to 

make d abf ona abet duppeal of bon wane categ ories. 

ERYM.mi Sp ecies 

The bald eagle anal pegegrb e, fale. were identified in the draft statement ore scurrhlg 

winin a in close proximity W Ste Hen[oN Reserva tion Other nreataed m eaengerad 

species that mold be alts led by Ste antlered laki, of contaminants into Ste river 

include the Colambian white-fe lled des aM hag eagle end peregrine falcon le the 

Cadmbia River GeSe. The Department of Energy as respoaible W initiate consultation 

with Ste se rv ice p ap er B ec ome V.) and (c) of ne EMargered Spates Act if R Is 

determlad tat a Rat ed spsles may be effected. 

Mr. Mah HOltentElS 

RECEIVED DOE-RL 3 

erp 

24 1" 

WM DI VISION 

Additionally, several species tat beer bem identi fied as commer g on or edjeeent to the 

Reatead Reserva tion use cu rrently ea ger review as modulates fa ialualm to the list of 

thrmtmed v craw wed Ws ins. TTeee are to Nrtuglaus hawk, SemhaonY hawk, 

ling-b illed anew, Columbia milkweteh (Astorg plus eolumblmue), pents ist mind 

9,allows. (Rxiope celvcire vu.' calambie ê ), 

giant Co umbia River limpet (PUhmain 

attalm, and great Codmbla River spire 

3.2.4.3 

.11 Mi^tho 12 hus mhonthienu eU 

candidates, these species do at have any legal protw Um uMer n. RMeêred Species 

Act. However, Ste cooperation and maintome of all Federal agencies to protect anal 

enhance populations of caMidate spec ies may proolum the need for their Nture Rating. 

We would encourage DOE to take sly stias needed to hems Nat these â'Sias are 

protected from any a&arm impacts resul ting f ro m the're,mew action. If yon have espy 

questions regardhg responsibi lities wrier the Eaangeree Sp ec i es Act, please comet[ 

Cdtural Resources 

Jim Micaeb 

2625 Parknidnt Lane, Bldg. B4 

Olympia, Washington 98502 

FTS 434-9444 or Commercial (206)152-9444 

The fia l . statem en t should captain sufficient Information to determine whether 

construction of no proposed facilitiess w illimpact com pel I ... brolgicai hlstoriceD a 3.2.5.1 

resources- 115 archml ogic sties rea aid On be loca ted a or near the Hanford Site, hot 

Neer is a i ndica tion that %be locations of imp osed construetme have bem ar se, ed f ar 

cultural remre oes. Nor is there an inexpert. of the mope of the su rvey perfor med by 

Rice (1968., b) iden tifi ed in the bibf,mphy. 

We re ammo ld tat no Ra1 Melemmt clarify theca items end document the opinion of 

Me 

State Historic Preservaer 

tion Officer rep.oh, .harbor . survey of th 

no proj ect area 

needed in scaed with Ste. requirements of 36 CFA 800, -P romotion of Hutorle and 

(2dlurel Resourees.^ 

Fug and WDdlife Resou rces 

Regions ve miâtery wa stes have been gmereteM at Ste Hanf ord Reseevationover the 

pen 40 years. Past d isposal techniques oft en corseted of placing waste materiel Into 

pits or cribs and covering th em with minimal quantiti es of m â. Although areas 

eonta0pW inane wester may be iml.tedf ro m expaum to .mew, this disposal method 

has offered li ttle p ro tec ti on to the food chat. of both aquatic std wildlife ..am.. in 

Is 

3.2.5.1 

Me a re a. We flee concerned t ha t implementa tion of any of the proposed disposal 3.2.4.2 

alternatives, ialudinir t he No Action Altemetwo, could result In monamhg alverse 

effects W aguat5c am wUdlife man goes uMer the stewardship of the Pun and Wild li fe 

Service. Resou rces involved hulude mmtlromous fish (chinook, con e, and soak,. welmam 

gran ted bout, and nurgeo), waterfowl a nd other m igratory hinds, and federally lined 

threatened Or endangered spmies. 

Inf or mation about lmkoge of radionuc lides f ro m the Hanford Reaerv.nm and its 

movement in melimeots f ro m Hanford to the e Columbia River st euary wasoc documented in 

3.5.4.6

• 

t 

V 


005 

Mr. Rich 11MIUm/EIS ^gyp 2 d M 4 

WIDIVISION 

1893 by the USOS (Dcoumgt No. 433-N, Radionuelldes in Tramport k the CeWmbla 

Riven from Pasco to Vancouver, Washington, 1993, by W. L Haushad, H. H. Steven, dr., 

J. L Nelson, orb G. R. Dempster, dr.). The @eft abatement Indicates the presence of 

^hot apbk" or "severe concentra tion^ of redi ... aRO. in sediments of the rives. Th.. 

ringlet under the legal responsibility of lire Bervbe. We are concerned that V 

alternative selected could result k further leeks[, of radionuclides into the 

3.2.4.2 River ecosystem. Other federally protected fish and wfdI a resources aW 

under our jurisdiction on or adjacent W the Columbia River may be adversely e 

the continuing Isolate of contaminants from the Hanford Reservation Thee 

facilities include Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Sch ge (NWR) (a 

Umatilla RIVE, Ridgeneld NWR, Columbian White-ba iled Deer NWR (eabifshnd g 

pursuant W the Endangered Spgics Act), and Lewis and Core NWR. In addition, several 

State of Weebmgmn Habitat Management Areas and the Honnevills Fish Hatchery 

(funded by the Corps of Engineers and operated by Oregon Department of Pkh and 

Wildlife) may be adversely impacted. The matt otatemgt does cot adequatelydissection 

the direct or indirect impacts of the proposed disposal project on fish and wildlife 

source on me project site or in arses adjacent W Or dow.eeam from Me project. 

The final Movement should Identify me... to mitigate fish end wildlife loss. in deeB 

in the Duststatemgt. 

The Esecufve Summary gates that the "environmental impgk (both short-and long- 

2 rt term) calculated for the four alternatives are generally low." However, that (mornin g. 

a 4 . 2 I rot .,ported k the @aft galemrnt. The dkcundmt of environmental impeCW 

(Sealm. 5) doms not addma any Of the above Co.... The draft statement does net 

meted. the tough, Of any Impact gudi.. no duty diseugion of project breech, On 

aquatic and wBdbfe mandrces is limited top statement that the addition[ impact Is 

"Judged W be small" on page 5.12. 

p rl q Based on the information presented In the haft statement, we a 

4 re enable W determftie 

2 

.a .m. within and adjacent to the proposed dfsposolsle. 

3 . . . 2 what impacts, H any, the proposed project may bave ban the im portant fish ape wildUf. 

//ll rrss In order W accurately assess the environmental Impacts of the proposed action, we 

recommend 

3,2,4,C.lonw, end mitigame, for fisdetailed prie4t andildlifeet. feels appro and the gacoement. 

Information reported in the Department of Energys Atmue, Reports on Environmental 

Monitoring at Raiford should be used In the firm statement W identify resources that 

could be affected by tee proposed action. This tonuouttlon should also be considered m 

the analyses of the consequences from each alternative W ensure that the selected 

alternative would retluce potential adverse effects he rarou roe on the reservation and on 

downstream aquatic and wildlife babitat 

Micaral R.m. 

Seelig R.3 rotes that mNNn,, into a waste-ammEm or dispel site from me surface Is at 

C likely concrete within IOU years V active inctitutionl control of the site is lost. Two 

3.2.1.6 distinct types of @Biter ecenertus are pustulated. Bcoauee h. different @REtg 

objectives end different else drill holder different volumes of waste and sell material are 

brought to the surface: 

005 

Mr. Bich Holbn/®S 


3 

^ô y d 11Hb 

WM DIVISION 

1. Loge diameter (30 dm) mbreml exploration boraloles 300 m or more M depth; 

2. Welk &MW at comparatively de8ow depths (100 m or lose) far domegie water 

eWp Y• 

The Hest .e io mug presume the evsteace Of Interval resources or minerel haverm e 

Potential (either actual er lie ceiveid W Win W near In the site, because deep, large 3.2.1.6 

diameter bmeholva are rot randomly @Rlad winumn goologbel, ge ubmich il, . 

geophysicalevJoe.. W justify the operation However, mare k nd direct d'seuatch of 

Me potential for mistral resources m lire draft statement. Therefore, me fief 

skbment should describe the potential for discovery/recovery of mineral reeou ges In 

Me area. 

Spree Comments 

The following comments relate primarily W materiels provided In me appliances W the 

abatement. 

1. We questiah the validity of me eesumpffen that when the Wonder reach Me 

Columbia River they would be mixed and diluted instantaneously Jorge by the3.5.4.8 

volume of Bow in me river, The concept of bmtmetaneous mixhg and dBu{ienb by 

water in the Columbia River k mbleading. When lin icamelld. reach me Columbia 

River, It is tort unlikely met May could conwentrate k narrow new pstim inbed of 

mutter completely with She river water. Many nudhdes have the potential W he 

adsorbed on clay partial. contemned in the elver water . me bed. The major, 

Impact would consequently he ch the food chain along me eonWm[nted path 

rather than on drinel, water.,,U. dependent cm the river. 

2. Because Of mWtOOyeritg and the large differenceas k hydraulic c sedurgivili., 

water possibly might move heriiontally Instead of just vertically as aumed orb 

3 e 5 • • 48 

simulated in the model. This might alt decrease me area in which diffac on 

eontrok me release of radionuclide migration in the unsaturated .nee. 

3. The assumption of vertical now in areass that surround me protective barriers may 

net be conservative. Even H the materiele ma homogenenn and imbropin, the 

dew-wand coo a men[ of wet. would ta pe to spread horlablly on outward. if the 

materi als we and agembople, the spreading could even he mere. 3.5.2.48 

This In effect would reduce the travel time from the waste to the water table . 

Me damove. that diffusion controls migration would be lea. Thus, amore 

nervstive approach would base been to eaume a trapasaidal shape fen advgtive 

now in me unsaturated wore. 

4. Do me results of the model simulations sally reflect th e per forch om W of a 

ultfayer barrier and de the simulation really provide rom e 

m3.5. 

argerance as the 

overall effectiveness of me trotter! Do the equation used In the smulatn 

1.60 

o 

eegretely portray how water will or wIR rat move through the barrio!

de 

a77 

3 'j 3 {fl 1. 0 

M 005 

DO 



- Mr. Rich Halten/08 8 'Mr. Rim Ha11'sul IS 7 

r ^ p . LM 

M e'' 2 4 

2 _ 

VJMDIVISION 

VIM DIVISION 

S. "a system diescribM is ectuaDy a 2-phase system, so lid, li md, aM vapor. Witt any 

of the em tami migrate through the vapor phase? Cesium In undWely bat what 

about Carbon an mnts 

We home these comments will be helpful to you in the ptepention of t he final stateme nt. 

3.5.2.47 d Strontium? 

Sircerolyd 

6. Tire a ant of he w t of Carbon Cazt b ed. to roe vapor Its 

movement to pater water table should .red. .t In be oth er warted assuming g 

ona 

. ṣu 

. orgy 

the acm of eontamm rnts in the liquid pas ph.. through Me umaturet ed may hot 

GGG 

be convervative. 

^ 

7. Lava Howe and'voleen.m might be benfi ecial N net they may most. additiwut 

Bruce Blanchard, ard, Director 

ovr er ove the wa stes{ however, the po ssibility t ha t such even ts might nice ties e 

Rnvirtm 

entel P roject Review 

net 

water adds, bra.. of compa, tim'of the underlying mil , such et it comes in 

3.5.6.37 contact '" win the buried wastes sh ould be considered. 

3.5.3.16 

-/ 

3.5.6. / 

8. Tae statem en t dhcu seas hydrau lic interconnec tion of Ne uppermost confined 

aquifer. not the unconfined aquifer ...in of the -200 Areas." Contou rs and 

_. mream6ncs of fi gure @.2 that endeavor a portion of the ground-water mnderftm 

WsAM the 1200 Areas* moves northwafd through the gap betwe en Gable Bu tte and 

Cable Mounteln The mmeet analysis s ho uld M dres the assible significa nc e of 

efforts on the uimarmo st emfined aquifer. V failu re of mtutel or engineered 

ben,/as should ocamr. The smlysis should i nclude effecta an g round-water 

movement'r^W tim, from riess in the water table accompanying postulat ed futu re 

inereas so in recberge during wetter periods ie.g., greater Loan 5.0 em/Year). 

9. The grouts+water model assume a t enfold increase in rabarge whereas Me 

aurfine-water m od el assumes a twofold Aeresss to annual p recipitation. The 

Impact(.) of molte (lean Doodi m, so . result of the P robable Maxima. Preolpl bstion 

f ollowing s aeries of wet yon should be evalu ated in Sm 

tlon 4.4.1. T7ds seal nds 

should consider cohmMmtimr impacts resulting f ro m flooding of-onvle ephemeral 

strem es and weeta pods. 

10. The US. Chops of Engtncem has evaluated the p ropnod constr uc tion of Ben 

Peanhtin Dam at river m il e 348,. ab ou t 18 km upsteam f ro m Richland, Washington. 

The higher water elevati on net would be c re ated by the dam could affat nuclear 

q fectiee W ed.,the bean of the Columbia River is the -190 Areas^ site The native 

would ho managed u Me, the. procedure+ selated for Trmearsnic and Tank West. - 

- tl.pr s A rebi h the of the Ban P it.f o P.. a[ by N o Corps could change the 

basisotn order n,the the Arm sr bite for rae waters would be evaluated, 

3Miuding the potential fm for nigher ground and acesh surface waters flat 

could resWt Prom 

ctit ofBen ou 

Franklin hepa Dam. This isbe s ld be addressed o in fire final 

statement ntem valuee of the in and y the 900 

site to L the Columbia River 

wild of ces. 

and 

a the high aa value is i. [.h end life nsoureac Stranded B[eloea0 trout W ran add 

aaBh t aan. N this Waco of the river. This mac h 1: e15o used by murgan eiq 

hold eagle. 

3.2.4.6"- We ha net 

at nine million cubic meter, of fill material would be hauled to Me "2110 

We st Area^ site and us ed fa backfrll and barrier cons truction. The borrow arer 

aMuld he reha .hated after the material is removed. Replacement of top mil ed 

revegetetron c ou ld be employed to nom Nis art to viable ha bitat. 

3 . 5.6 . 12 ^N Rector" Is 1. the "100 Awes" site and .p roduce, radioactive wastes net

$ 3 

006 007 

doe/ too 7 

`7 CITY OF Kennew ICK w IsHInsmn 

- i / 

a weceal 

m 

l eamseu ., , souaeeamu 

C 3 3 

as Y13 :,o wtsr erx.x.vaxue, x.o. ao:nu,xmecwme. wasxirygEN.'D 

DOE-RL 

RECEIVED DDE-RL 

JUN 191986 ^- ^• JUN 2 S 10 

June 16. 1986 

' WM 

ell DIVISION 

ÔNIS 

P 

iD 

3.4.2 

R. A. Holten/EIS 

Rich 

of Energy 

Richland 

Operations 

P.O. Box SSD 

Washington 

,f /, ® i ^:-^t C^,rdâf ^ 

Tl'_'/ 

Richland, 99352 

`^" 

`(îcy ^F ^^(, ^' CC c^y^[2 Tl^y(^.^' Zxz- 

RE: Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for The 

Disposal of Hanford Defense High Level, Transuranic And Tank Ê` -^ Qg p ..^ 

Wastes. (March, 1986) 

1 

Mr. Haltom; ^?^^ ^ .w"/c^,/^ ^/ ^^^ (I-GC-! ,G'CCL^:.c^Lc^Tv 5^Y 

G 

The Kennewick Fire Department offers the following comment Concerning 

The â .I.E.S: / ,Gl. TL c'"d 

The draft environment impact statement does not adequately address the 

impacts 'to municipal and state emergency services. Primarily the areas 

of training, planning and equipping need to be further discussed. 

Training is currently available in handling radiological emergencies, 

but needs to be evaluated to ensure that programs are adequate for the 

4 

^/f,^ 

uE^ 

^• 

j-'`^-^^-c-^=c.4 (CGe' e

,/- ,5 y { 

e.cG= (^ GzL lG zLo Lf -G. ^Zf, 

007 008 

rich-Bute./,, 

95 mot o£ mer(y 

.Richland. 0,oratians Office 

P.O. a x:550 

- ./heads `/tr C^-ueê .cam C' 7. /r.^ce. h^ne^ran e915^ 

rG„ 6" du d- 

SA4/g6 

waa 

RECEIVED DOE.RL 

' £^Q I as reciting to consent on the dreft EM ^ DisMeal of Defers, High_ 

- ]foal Transuranic and T ook- :testes: 

Baf I ccest dire to the Els I went toaq that of the eltematrves 

asy a d the g ]teas tis . e if e st favorable for o Lettering reaso n: lif 

Z.-. app o£ the ad L t 

leered it will only be carte tine till 

Ean£Ot ea le t for all the rest] nucllean ar na P gardse of a? tM denials 

{ h at e em t not v tenons. u rf'a n m uh 

a n g to b a s me wo e the a the. 2.3.1.12 

it should be ofe, esough for all the nmleer waste ss hrn t]ent ar of goes. For that 

reason aloro the in-,lone stsbal ataen, aisse.. and refreae ros altereatives should be 

"1/ visaeIf 

in geologic d_s marl is a n, and .-.nest of the waste is tvclsd off than 

too aaaedn ng sure free whets that. t. i in s P into a it souM an be ^=amend of on;p in 

200 areas Ysr.awa, free tM Columbia. oo nsf Ste it retold all be eed off. 2 . 2 . y1 1 

xestop thmisv t 11 se the re£eaene alternative 

n rnakie is a alum becau cansee the DS en a 

about stes tbat m e " the 300th stable a would be bozo toes b e" then tell¢ 

snout ntrean that. £m- he 300 redsc to the 200 area : 1 There Mea been 

nwxmos mierts 

In t the p ress of ]esiang tanks, This reddos in eta and ABC acre caele3 the Columbia a the 3.3.3.1 

most raditattl Mver In the world". This is stable? 

in the ES node, the in-place stabMs.t c: l+c=vativa It is stated 

O 

that ^ lit-.de or ro water in sssilebi to ilt,ete waste sites on! .—v the weste 

materials.. St stater the ]erni., oce,W - pmvsot umard or dcvm and novenset fenter 

by crooner, notion. e '.In a world of ct egivg veetber patter ns , mesiritt to attire 

Y..,,, vtleames and the Y necessitkv to have this xeste isolated for lvm o of -dcthousande of 

this just doesn't satisft me. in the M soutn est the re hove been resent floods 

3.5.1.57 

store nom. have been recorded q tore. 1 Just ca n't believe that thss reset. ran be 

nufficient]t isolated £roc water by tdn grneloovering method descAbod. 

I could gt on but will scar e. the- reader. Thess vsamns s* ad never have bean 2. 2 . 1 

built in the first place but since thaS have, we mss t Sind the best way snvi. rsent-J]t 

sound to dispose a it. Foliticel caaideentless nest teke a back sent to soviforesntal 

mideraticns. Storing thin v.-ste a ^.a hare. near the nation`s aeeond largest river is 

aearl incase. ( I think a certain remh mar Santo Barbara boloagi^g to one woo trely .3.3 3.3.1.1 11 

]ova mcI..aemva would be a better choice). cerkavl, a geolog i c a.sosel in an 

area xith ro major river in batter then H.of.t. 

am Holteh: 

'JUN 2 R eau; 

dace 

Cl/ 

Siserolf. sours, 

;6 Proctor 

. 1, ? no-s 

Dwain, Or 97435

J A ^^ $„ 

3§ 

009 

010 

/6 

RECEIVED DOE-RL A, 614 J rte' i nne err .?.-erp ah.. 

JUL 31498 ar Z4/J ou.eu. 

WM DMSiON AT 

. at , A. 

RECEIVED DDERL 

JUL 8 10 

WM DIVISION 

N 

CUDD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND CEM'SFPM, 

NY NAME IS DOIOIES HOUSE. I'M A RESSDEST OF WALLA. VALIA, WASHINGTON, A HOUSE Vl Y, 

2.1.1 my NC FAMILY, MY CHILORE Sf 

R AND ATE my COUNTRY THE Sam. INAM AFRAID BECAUSE 

OF TIP MCLWNI ASTE. 

DEEP SITE AT IONEORD, WASHINGTON. WE DON'T W VAMP ITS 

THE WATERAIR AND LAND ARE BEING CORTAMINATID. WHAT WORLD NAME IF WE RUBBER 

3 .2.6.1 NAME TO'HAVE AM ACCIDENT SIMIL AR T6 CHPRNCBYLT JUST SEEM ARE WE TO Be EVACUATED 

7drM—D M HOW IANGT DON'T I= RESIDENTS OR TIP TRI-C ITY AREA AND EXHAISE'S OF 

HANFOND AND ALL PROFESS THAT ARE FOR THIS ISSUE WORRY ABOUT MAT 

UN1 WILDLIFE. OUR FISH AND OUR LAND IS RECORD RUINED. MR HEALTH IN GKMJJ, IS IN 

MRS. THIS US TO aI'VE TALKED TO HU AREAS OF PEOPLE THAT OPR'A46 THIS SITE AT 

2.3.2. 8 

MAY ORS. DO YM— OCR. FT THEY ASK W? QUOTE..: WHY HASU'T TMIS MESH An TO A VOTE'? 

I WONDER ADOIf THAT. MYSEIF. JUST WHAT DO WE NAYS TO DO TO BN HEARD? 

IMMEDIATELY 

2.5.6 W. NO HUG WASTE SHOULD BE AND H YOU EARN TMT ALREADY EXISTS. THERM S NOON 

TME TO WASTE. WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT WE KEMP NUCLEAR PWER, BUT WE RUST I IPARN HOW 

TO CONTAIN IT IN A SAFE AND BATS MARIAN MOVE WE MJODUCE ANY-NW OF IT. 

FOR THOSE THAT DISAGM WITH ME, THE ANSMEHIS SIKPIH! IF I DON'T LIKE IT. THNN M- 

UPS I SHOULD MOVE FROM THIS AREA.WHONGL I SAVE BEER A RESIDENT OF THIS STATE M OS T 

OF M YLIFE AND I SAVE IT ENDS. THE NORTHWEST S SOME OF THE MOST' VEAVINUL COUNTRY 

IN TIP UNITED STATES. I DON'T NAPPED TO MR THAT I SHOULD HAVE TO LEAVE. I THINK 

THAT TARS AREA' VIENE I LIVE SH OULD BE SAFE .... SO I CAN ENJOY A IUPPY. HEALTHO LIPS 

HERE Am ESPECIALLY .... OOE WITHOUT WORRY. 

3.3.5..2 THEM ARE QU ITE A FEW AREAS IN WISH STATES THAT ARE DENSELY POPULATED THAT BOOM 

HOUSE THIS WASTE WITHOUT MARK TO PEOPIS BE WILDLIFE. WHY CAN'T TWEE AREAS HE CORe 

SIDER®T 

STDWAIS IS LARGE AND NOT THAT FAO FROM HARPORD. CAN YOU IMAGINE LEAVING TO EVACWTS 

THAT CITY? WHAT OR THE FARMLANDS SURROUNDING HWEGTD AND FATENDIM EASY TO WAIJA 

WAIIAT WE ARM 

3.2.6.1 yg o. 1AOK ATTTHEIIARCE HWFIT'A^SÎNCTHISÂR EA I TOUR LD YW HAVE TO M. 

A RE FEW 

WAGUA 

NW TO FL CE[ ONE M TIE BIGGEST MERGERS... TIE PENITENTIARY AT WALLA WALLA..... B 

JUST THINK W THAT FUN A MINUTE. WHERE UE TIE SUPPORTERS AF TITS TERM PR OPOSE TO 

PUT THERE MOPES IN C AR E OF EVACUATION? I INDEED AT THE THOUGM. 

AS A MUSICIAN. I ENJOY SINGING SONGS THAT ExME3 IOVE AND HARPINEBS AND PRIGS FOR 

MY COUNTRY. I DON 'T WA NT TO BE SINGING SONGS WRITTEN OF FEAR AND MO VELESSNESS. 

I BPM FOR MMGS, MYPARTLY AND FRIENDS AND ALL TIE WINES TRAY' COULDN'T BE USES 

TODAY. I MEAN F OR TOM LOVE OF MY STATE AND THE IAVE OF MY C OU NTRY. I MWAK FOR 

THE FWME GENERATIONS THAT CAN'T SFUK.F OR TIENMELVES. 

Taw YON. 

.July 11 

ne 

1986 

DOE Richland Operations Office 

Attention. R. A. Holton / STE goats MANagemant. Division 

Richland. Washington 99352 

Dear Mr. Holten, 

The Reasons are a 2700 member outdoor oriented organization 

based in Portland. The club has bad a lung Standing interest 

in Northwest Environmental issues. We ...eider the disposal of 

defense waste at Hanford to he one of the most Crucial environmental 

decisions the Northwest has ever. faced. 

In deciding to postpone the ....Rd re pository because of doubtful 

need for the additional disposal specs, the DOE appears to 

Preclude the option of co-mingling defense waste with commercial 2. -1 . 

waste. There Simply isn't enough area in One repository for the 

3 

Commercial waste and the estimated D0.000 tone of defense waste 

at Hanford. We believe that the USDOE is acting in bad faith 

regarding the DEIS by effectively eliminating one of the options. 2.1. tf® 

f 

The M.Namse prefer an option that would include deep geologic 

disposal of the high level defense waste Currently stared in 

near-surface tanks. We believe that the cost estimates for this 3.3.1.1 

option are unrealistically high and tend is bias the DEIS away 

from this option. 

If the USDOE praalude. deep geologic disposal, the Mazamae believe 

another o ption Should be Considered, that of vitrifying 3.1.8.9 

the high - level waste before entombing it in near-surface tanks. 

We hope YOU will take these comment. Into consideration as you 

make your final decision. We believe they represent a large - 

Mha- he Red— NhftcM As. -AV&9,". M"-PaA.(SU)227-TARS 

ANUA.N.Y..weYE. w..rem ww YUw:a Mwr er ..w rt..®w.Y 4.dFeb w,wl W.mY 

YsalavwYYan..Y Vr4M pe.,Ye4m y .AelsuYAw®!®I Yb Ywe.wM1.. mF,.,Y.. W^l 

wwYî e .Y^YYeiAYnY.hiw Fl YeyYY.Yenybww °YSIYYY..Yg Yitl. Yn..9rL 

DOLARMS H. RUDE 

M SOUTH, SECOND AVE. 

WAILA VALIA, WASHINGTON 

993U 

TEL. (509) 529-0185 

TNALy 1- (qrf 

_ 

IV ED WEAL 

RECE 

JUL g M 

WMDMRM

010 

011 

croee enation of Northw..terriers. 

Thank you for this opportunity to express our views. - 

very truly Your-, 

F. Obarlasder. Chairman. 

WIZAMAS Conservation Committee 

JUL B 1988 

WM DIVISION 

2 July 1986 

Jeff Boscole 

3425 W.Lk.Sam.Rd.S. 


(206) 746-85 7 3 


JUL B M 

IYM DIVISION 

Po 

R.A. Holten/EIS, Waste Management Division A/L 


Richland, WA 99352 re -- Draft EIS. Hanford haste 

Dear R.A. Holten 8 Staff: - 

The three-volume and summary set of the Draft EIS- Dispo 1 f Hanford 

Defense H^h-j, I,.Tranuranic and Tank Faster, Aarcli M, prov 3es a 

anterestrng an Comp re ans av overvi ew or t e tecnol... factors associated 

with some considerations of radionucleotide storage at the Hanford site. 

We are unconvinced the many fears have been adequately allayed. These 

- include, but are not limited to, the •'pocketgophers," the "groundwater 

contamination," the possibility of river flooding from major catastrophes 

ranging from natural earthquake to rupture of the Grand Coulee Dam as 

well as risks from geologic activity and/or volcanic eruption. These 3.5.6.35 

and other h az ards strongly suggest that nuclear technology carries with 

it many potential risks which would render the utilization of atomic 

energy development unsuitable for consumption by those who subscribe to 

high standards of ethical responsibility to the environmental es our ce 

and to future generations of human beings. As a. consequence of this 

ill-advised romance with nuclear technologies and of the warnings from 

eminent scientists throughout several decades of investigation, we are 

suspicious that the patterns for selective breeding will epitomize those 

personality types who were motivated b y un controllable urges stemming 

from ruthless genetic endowments, with little perspicacity or sensitivity 

to cultural extenuations beyond mundane technocratic administrative 

functionality and bureaucratism aligned with conformist redundance. If 5 e 5 

the intent was to provide labor-saving leisure-time for an atomic economy, 

I will remind the hearing examiners that "idle-hands breed the devils - 

work." We are today witness to the devil's seduction of 'easy" money. 

The report details some statistical calculations of "health effects," 

however, this phrase must be a misnomer. The word 'effect" means "to 4. 1 , 27 

bringabout; accomplish; fulfill; produce or make," yet in the passages 

which refer to "health effects" we are instead speaking of "ill. effects," 

correct? Nothing inherent or intrinsic to the nuclear indust ry , from 

mining to processing to waste storage, suggests anything beneficial to

Oil 

RECEIVEu DOE-RL 

JUL 8 10 

012 

Dell 

(Draft HIS, Hanford Waste, jb) WM DIVISION 

W 

- the "health" of human beings; .rather we read of the clever financial 

scheming linked with engineering boondoggles exacerbated by the refusal 

Of highly competent scientists to be associated with the nuclear projects, 

if the DOE wishes to include references depicting the "ill. effects m - 

anticipated by this dubious marriage to nuclearist technologies, then 

the labels oughtto be altered to reflect the situation- Since we believe - 

that the DOE has been informed of this particular semantic problem many 

2e 

CJ 5 'times before in the past, the continued abuse of language is inexcusable 

and cannot be to leveled. Further persistence with misnomers only indicates 

to us the degree of untrustworthyness among the radiological sta£fp.0ple - 

which Will create only that scenario of contempt into which tomarrow's 

children will be cast. Will they find occupations that stimulate and 

envigorate healthy bodies as well as minds, hearts And souls? 

TESTIMONY of 

4.1 

.27 To qualify as a "health effect" according to Webster, the item most GOVERNOR BOOTH GARDNER 

"bring about or accomplish or produce . health" however,.. it LS obvious 

by the general linguistic constructions embodies by the Draft EIS that _ 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

these biochemistry engineers have overla ed "economic health" with 

physiological health," - i.e. bymixing. tOe;t er the production of waste 

far 

with the subjective feelings attending that moment of waste creation. 

It is natural for a political management prospe ct us to coagulate around 

USDOE PUBLIC HEARINGS 

that crust of conglomeration, abomination and apostasy.1n many respects, 

the characteristics of radionueleotide waste amortization remind us of the 

on 

5, C swashbuckling Nazi-movements of the mid-20th century, 'true believers' in ^ 

2 L , d :J the burgeoning powers of the scientific methodology of human relationships. DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

As we point out in a repeatable ED ... WHILE ... UNTIL loops, the social 

factors of, Part Three (3) 'Was to Disposal" cannot be delimited from the 

by 

sociology of Parts One (1) "Mining" and Parts Two (2) 'Nuclear processing." 

The substitution of technocratic economies for Christian spirituality Will 

CURTIS ESCHELS 

again destroy this civilization psychologically as by the "enemy within," 

as other civilizations had been destro6y' ur painful past experiences. 

SPECIAL ASSISTANT ON ENERGY ISSUES 

(See -- Herbert Marcuse One-Dimensional Man, 1961 ) Nothing in the 

usage of "health effect" Tn ' t ei 

iepart might explain the depth July e, [9e6 

of newspeak double-talk" epidemic to the progress of this disease. 

your choice -- heaven or hell. 

r, 

A.E. VanVoggt Destination Universe J 

Francis SChae rueri tua 'ity 

Paul Tilldch Sys tame as 

William A. RanSen R e tom oy 


oax - 

Esther Veramae Ham e u y evised) Encyclopedia of Judging 

9 

And Exhib£t£h Floricu -2 t ..e 4 , .-A ist^- Classic 5th ed. JUL 

Alexander M. Hicke y The Morality at Consent - 

WMDMSION

sP3 

_ 

1 

i 

_ 

012 012 

H 

Governor Gardner rE,..Et.d that 1 express his regrets that he could 

not be hee r personally to c m an, on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement on the Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Cevel. Tra - 

ranic and Tank Wastes. He .asked me to present his testimonySaMy . 

is. s Cur tie Eschels T an Governor Gard... . spec al ..tent 

erg, i 1 Chair the state of Washington Energy Facility 

SitenEvaluati oxi Council, and I am a member of the state of 

Washington Nuclear Waste Boartl. 

Before I make comments, specific I will take a few moments to list 

general criteria the U.S. mDepartment of Energ y (USDOE) should ua. 

to reach Pa. si gns. The number one criterion must . be the prote, 

n2. . lion Public. health antl the envir.x..ht. To meet this .11 innert 

L 3 tact criterion, USDOF must: 

3.3.5x4 

2.4.1.1 

2.2.3 

2 .5.6 

2.2.1 

- USE state of-the-art technologies: 

sumPly with appropriate 

laws by I....no the .has.. of the 

3954 Atomic Energy Het exclusions and moving into the 

nahi ne of cu rent fEd ... 1 legislation. v 

siosiger er but net allow c. to drive d.ci- 

.za future releases, and 

make su r cess. ' not politic , pre ail in the decision 

- 

making Pro 

The cle cup of this 40 years act... I.tion of. wastes i .a,." 

long-term challenge for USDOE antl the state gf Washington. This 

Draft EIS is the beginning of along, difficult, and expensive. 

task. 

p I am Pleased that the citizensof this region have become no knowl- 

2.3.2eg.8gamble about ehissue. edit the USDDE state 

W h gt n information programs for providing information to the 

citizens. I hope those information programs will continue even 

though the Draft EIS .comment period will soon end.. 

The following specific comments are 

made in the spirit of improving 

this draftimpact statement. This three volume, 1,000 page in, 

act v for the most part, clearlywritten no technicall y .... tl. 

However, to make the final dums r t c 1 o d at" USDDE 

must incorporake the followings 

Chemical. Haz ortls 

The scope of the DEIS.is too narrow The document does not adequately 

deal with the hundreds of thousands of tons of chemical 

3.1.6. 1 wastes ncluded i in tans wastes and dispersed in Hanford soils. The 

naz anon of chemical contam i nation are no less. real and urgent then 


JUL 1989 

-1- WMDIVISION 

the bazar GS of radioactive materials. usoGE muse entory the 

chemical contamination and each of 5pos.1 alternative ..at 

specific s ally address chemical cantaminat i on. 

Soil —B—liern 

Th. Draft EIS appear. to make o .11yoptimistic P.,f....me c ...e - 

ents for soil barriers. TM1e validity of the EI S is in Ja .... orif s 3. 5 . 1.57 

the available literature has been Misrepresented. Barrier perfrmance 

must be substantiated by previous Studies and actual experi- 

Path.., and travel time calculations are mean ngless Until 

barrier performance is substantiated. 

i we 

We aconcerned that the HSDOE emphasis on stabilization of tanle 

onV to the Nuclear West. Policy Act "multiple Earner" 

approach which requires stabilization of both the container and the 241 2.4. . 1 

asks.. TM1e USDDE approach lead. to as a[knowl etlOPtl contaminat 

of Hanford groundwater. Cents' nation of groundwater is ty rar ion 

to Stain 1 In the final El UEDOE should nurse to omply con with 

A. 

.11 a p,ropnat. l te l ws to Protect public health and a a the en, 

.....a s With th N t' n l Environmental P liC 

Act 

In the final 

impact statement, USDDE must se pcifically identify the 

impacts of "the" proposal as required by the National nv omen Eintal 2.4.1.17 

Policy Act. Theo of "boundin g -a umptions" to crange of 

impacts or It nat es is not a ..plaits. Delay. orecords of 

dec will 

um, a supple ..tar EIS with an 

opportunity for citizen commentim 

Th. draft Par .... t calls for a system t0 mark the boundary of the 

actual died ... 1 sites. USDDE tlescribes what it calls 'actual di._ 

posal sites whi cn would c r 32 square miles. In ouropinion, 

net all the 32 square miles must be off limits fora ys— only that 

land that is retrievably contaminated by tlangrous wastes should 

be written off. USDDE must establish a separate, public or ocesm to 

condemn land prior to writing it off. 

AbilityLo M-tIt or 

2 a 5 a 7 

USDDE must. in the final DIE, evaluate the impact of defense wastes 

on the ability Y o monitor a proposed repository. This m nitoring 

obvious is especially that important aconsideration in the of earlier a repository postclpsure requires years• the 

It i in 

2 aa 1 7/ 

possible cleanup sof defense wastes. 

-y- 

RECEIVEv DCE-RL 

JUL 919W 

WMDIVISION

C 8 

4 

K 

y 

CJl 

3.3.2.1 

Efiec[ an O[her peci si_e 

2.2.3 Health and safety issue. eet be the ..... factor in the cleanup of 

lief ense wastes antl intlecrosigns leading to the selection of a site 

for geologic aisp osal of high -1 anal wastes. From all i cations, 

the tlecis.on to indefinitely postpone work on otl repository 

a b...d, 1a part, on GSGGE Cat, which assumed single-shell n wastes 

oultl not Bo to a repository. If the decision was influenced by 

such an assumption, there will surely be added pressure by I1500E to 

stabi Lzethe single-shell tank wastes in place. In addition, the 

use of such da'.a to make a decision on the Second r end repository 

s quesions t about the validity of the geologic rnposin-ysalternetive 

For ingle-sM1ell wastes. he spirit a o intent Cf 

ra 

th. National Environmental Policy Pct requires consideration of 

valid alternatives. The final EIS must clear up this contusion antl 

2.1 . uat clearly address the impact of single-shell wastes on the 

tlln es and c nstruction of a repository--wherever it Is built. TM1e 

final document must include specific information on the number of 

asters of classified waste 05DOE expects to extract from singleshe 

tanks. 

3.3.5.3 In ...clusinn. I support strongly U"OE's efforts to move ahead on 

key elements of the Hanford cleanup.This includes continuing 

arch and preliminary design work on the gl asaif icati on and 

groutfacilities. TM1e state of Washington will ..Ilk to forge a 

coalition to support cleanup funding. 

Cunt 

The Washington state Nuclear waste board will testify at the 

'settle meeting and the board will submit detailed comments an or 

before the August 9 deadline. 

Governor Gardner ant I thank. you for this opportunity to comment, 

-3- 

RECEIVED D06RL 

JUL 9 0 

WM DMS104 

Gordon J. Rogers 

1108 Road 36 

Pasco, Wasbmgton 99301 

Jury 8, 1986 



PO. Doe 550 

RECEIVED DO P ' 

Richland, WA 99352 dUL 9 1986 

Attention: Mr Pilch Holten 

WM DIVISION 


I submit the following comments for your consideration on the draft EIS an 

Disposal of Hamord Defense High ]eves, Trameuwnlc and Tank Wasters. 

1 approve of the USDOE'a effort to evaluate alteroatives in order to select a 

cost effective method for permanent disposal of these wastes in a manner 

which provides appropriate protection to the public and to plant employees 

in accordance With federal and state laws and 1e9W6tioas. 

I favor the boric approach of the Un-Place Stabilization LIPS) alternative for 

the following reasons: 

It is act at all clear that there will ever be a deep geological 

repository; or H there is, w what time frame it may become 

available. The UPS approach permits field work on Waste 

stabilization to proceed without waiting for resolution of the eomplea 

political problems of where to site the repository. 

•The IPS approach involves minimum physical disturbance of the 

waste materials. This reduces the problem of dispersal of 

radioactive material or contaminated soh, as well as the political and 

Public relations problems associated with transportation Of 

packaged wastes to Game other site for disposal. 

.This approach permits recovery or ready retrieval of radioactive 

cesium antl strontium capsules Which ere a valuable product fm 

medical sterilization or food irradiation applications. 

*The barrier and marker systems, will achieve greatly improved 

protection against accidesal disturbance of the West" for a long 

period into ma future. While there may be refinements, of the 

details of the carrier and marker during the detailed devise phase, 

the basic approach is sound and is far Superior to anything U am 

aware of having been planned fm hazardous Of tozk chemical 

ODI 3 

2.3.2.12 

3.3.2.1 

3.3.2.1 

2.5.8 

3.5,2.4

a 

tl- 

013 014 

u. s. Dspertmmtof EnerjSy. 

Rich Holten 

Page 2 

waste disposal sit". The non-nuclear chemical hazardous West" are 

G 

3.1. 6 . 1 presentncwinfugreateramoantsend arepotan tiany fumoreofa 5/03 771 0967 5240 S.B. Enepp,Street, 

besacd to human bealth and safety, than are the defen se wastes: and 

Portland. 

they w il l remain so indefinitely into the future. 

eTne c al culated health and safety impacts of the IPS aitemative us as _ Oregon. 97206 . 

3.3.2.1: low aS or lower than th es e of the other alternatives an d clearly meet Jn17 5th. loss 

the requirement s, of the applicable laws and regalation" with very 

, comforta ble margma for error or oversight In addition. they meet near Ur. Rotten, 

the AIARA objec tive. The heal th impacts are insist in oomperlsen 

Draft Environmentil Impact statement. 

With those due to nat u diy oocaft radia tion and also in ". . 

- .Comparison wi th the much highe r- claim to Wes an d health ulstug 

Meposal of penford Defense Hlgh-Level,. 

fromalmostaU othercommonhummactivitles." 

T"MUranic .nd Tank Wastes, 

2. 2. 4-The eafhman d oostis the lowestof the aliernatitea evaluated. T hi s is 

important became tapayer funds a re always in li mited supply, and n0s/EIS Oils Lash 1966 

there ere m an y ways in which funds could be spent to fu greater 

Co®onts on the draft . made as a member of the public 

advantage in protecting public health an d safety. 

r 

ON 

Thank you for the oppor tunity to presentmy views to you on this subject 

V trm9 yo 

.are enoloaefl herewith. 

You^î0cetwlY, 

GMS11t^ 

^ 

a 

Gordon J. Rogers 

- Pr. Rich Holten/6I8. 

tt.5: Department of Imsa , 

- 


JUL 91988 

- V/M DIVISION- 

_ 

ffichland Operation Office, 

P.O. Pox 550, -.. 

pinbland,. 

Washington. 99352. 

RECEIVED DOEAL 

JUL 8 . SM 

WMDIVISION

gg 

MW 

r 

2. 

Comsenta on Lran Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.) 

Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Levels Transuranic IS 

and TanU Wastes. DGG/EIS-0113 1936 

will there be any health affect to members of the public evident 

somatically or Statistically. Moreover * the DOE is committed 

The Draft E.I.S. is limited to o very detailed discussion 

to maintaining this criterion when it exercises Its discretion 

of the 440 000 CU, yds. of xTense Wastes accumulated on 

documented in Records of Decision. 

the site since 1943 and the projections for an additional 

F-r 

V 

2.2.11 

3.3.4.1 

W 000 an. yds. in the next 12 years. Written to meat the 

requirement. of the Councll on Environmental Quality the 

document says it "...will also help ensure that the public 

is Tully informed end Ss involved in the decision-making 

prone..: . 

At first sight it appear. that the decision is to choose one 

of three disposal options. for action or a o no-action" option. 

In no case ie a complete removal of ell defense wastes from 

Hanford a pUasibilit7f In each case for action there must 

be a worker system for the retention of tank residuals. 

Whatever the outcomes the Department of Energy retains the 

discretion to decide what combination of options will be 

used * i.e.. Geologic Disposal or In-Place Stabilization and 

DSs poael. It Se difficult to eae in whet way this 1s 

distinguishable from the third' option oUtllnedsr l.ee*.. 

Reform.. Combination LISposal. By virtue of the condition 

that all institutional central must: notionally be assumed 

to be lost by 2150. It I. anown that the "..action s option 

I. unacceptable and Ss only included b ... a. NEPA Bays it 

shoal^ Da^. 


The useful. port of the exercise is the examinatior. and JUL rt 8 

' 

1886 

Cumulative Impacts. 

Thic less. is only touched on Snfatmti.11y in the Stmmnry, 

while the fee paragraphs under Section 5.1.4 in.Vol.l. 

under this heading fall a long way short of what In relevant 2.3.1.14 

and ems entlal if the E.I.S. is to have any credence. The 

Defense Wastes are only part of the total inventory of 

radioactivity on the site. Them . are prwoe.e planter 

Operating reactors and Irradiated component. from elsewhere. 

How separate are they by location or nature and can It be 

shown that the interaction with Defense Wastes will not 

invalidate the analysis that has been presented? 

If it Ban be Inferred that by the year 2150 all operations 

not addressed in the E.I.S. will have ceased, then some 

underlying justification for the preeentatdon may be seen. 

The Columbia Gorge was formed some 10 000 ago, so to 

anyone sensitive to. that magnificent feature the projection 

of concern to that extant In the future I. well baleneed. 

This in no way however can Quench the Camara for the.present 

an9 next generation whe enjoy St. Further comments are 

mode as suggestion for public perception and public confidence. 

dommentstion of 'health and safety impacts for each opÎ(IVISION 


Here it in Shown that in no ease, short or long Ceram 

Page 2 of 4 JUL 8 686 

Page 1 of 4 

WM DIVISION

1 

8 

®14 

CO 

3. 

1 A Public Psroeotion. 

2.3.1.4 The time appears ripe fop public perception of risk to 

be identified as an important ingredient of the Impact 

Statement and discussed in depth ea objectively se any 

other issue. If the perception is ill-founded, It will 

through the denooratic process distort and mtsdireot action 

and in the extreme Sndueo apprehensions and 111-health 

which will be as real to the individual as If there were 

e materiel cause. There Se no guide in the statement to 

help appreciate the importance 1. co®onsema tezma of 

3.5.5.12 th. pr.Jected estimate. of the health affeots.quoted. 

Do page 17 of the Summary, dealing with Major Health and 

Safety. impacts shown on Table 3 9 it ie eaid °...they do 

show acme significant difference. among altwmti ..... 

this -presumably with respect to the difference . between 

2 and 15 In M DCD years. On page 3.35 of the Draft, Table. 

3.2 quotes the acme range of figures ae projected for W years, 

but It also shows that these figures are limited to the 

workers on the site; it Ss ear. for the public. Row Ie 

this to be understood by the public? 

If a risk is evident to the senses or within the experience 

3.5.5.110f an average individual, then the figures should stand alone. 

'ihan it is not.. as in the ones of rndiologi.ul risk, should 

not the signific.... of the figures be discussed and 

explained on the basic of Appendix N ? 

4. 

Public ConIldene e. 

The Draft E.I.S. eddvoo... reponsib111ties matorlelly 

dependent on the actions of individualas not identified In 

the document, who must direct and oarry out operations over 

many future years. Ae anvlaegad by the public 1. the region 

policy directions are given by a bureau in Washington D.C. 

more influenced by its closeness to those concerned with 

short-tom political expediency than those remote but 

directly affected. Administrative control is effected 

through s multiheaded hierarchy on Bits and op.retiuns a" 2. 5 . 5 

delegated to contractors, faoeleea corpnvat ions deol.ted 

by distance and contractual conditions from any oOmerb for 

local tomwmitles.: If the E.I.S. Is to be can . more than 

a fotmallty of little practical consequence, 1tia suggested 

that the line of responsibility should be set out. 

It Ss further suggested that the senior local of ficial 

sbouldbe owned when appointed and charged with the task 

Of setting up a SSeison orl-ad.ltlal cad meeting with 

co®unities desectream at proscribed interval. to disclose 

and answer .uestions at Records of Decision when made. 

Discussion of concerns both rational and Srretlonal would 

build mutual confidence, 

Page 4 of 4 

Pas. 3 o 4RECEIVED DOE-RL 

JUL 8 1986 

WM DIVISION 

RECEIVED DOERL 

JUL 81986 

WM DIVISION

9 

015 

016 

U V/,9 

00 i t. 

R.R. Mot Hs,/EIB 

1LB. Department of Energy 

Richland Operati on . Offi ce 

PO. Boa 330 

Richland. WA 99332 

D ea r Mr. or Ms. Holtom 

7940 S.W. Carol ale" P14ce 

Smavert on, Oreg on 97007 

duly 4. l9% 

The following comments are offered in respon se to the request for 

public input on the alternatives for "disposal'- of nuclear wastes. 

/! 

3 .3. 4. 2 It noes not seem appropriate for us (the public or media) to talk 

rationally about 'a permanent solution" to this problem. It only 

eems prudent to dims ....... Isle ways of t ...... rily atom ing the 

Ieat: until such time that a method 1s developed to neutralize them In 

a ....ingful way! 

It fa bey on d my angle ... img intelligence to think of concentrating 

radioactive ..at.. and placing them beyond reach (i.. . ° burying them 

3.3.4. 2 

far below the earth's surface) when their dangerous properties are 

described as having half-lifetimse of 100.000 years duration. 

3 .3. 2 .1 

2 . 3. 2.12 

Man, in his usual "out of night, but of mind and no longer my 

reap ... ibillty" approach to getting rid of garbage, any be tampering 

with s...thin, that just e.n't be di.p...d - of in that way! We moat 

find • way to make the waste harmless before it I. put into a 

"permanent disposal site." 

continuing 

ah.uldtbe obvious by°most,I 

vote VERYSTRONBLV FOR „ OPTION NUMBER 2. 

Let's store the wastes as safely as possibleLn a location where they 

an be accessed when a PERMANENT SOLUTION is developed. (Va. know, 

even if that's 10.000 years from now, the material will still bees 

hangs... than as it is saw!) - 

I thank you for any real consideration given to my thoughts. 

Hopefully my. and other eaginavrinq/scientiflc. Input will be 

considered to a higher degree than that given to the engineering Input 

for the CHALLENGER'.fatal flight. Politic. and meeting anas..... 

established schedule ah.ld hot determine this decision- 

Thank you. 

Si ncerely, 

Milton it Mannfsr. Prof ... i.nal Engineer 


JUL 10 IM 

WMDIVISION 

American Water weeks Associati on 

Win cola na - Deschutes subsection 

6780 Reservoir Rued, 

The Daites,. usages, 91058 

.July 8. 1986 

Rich Holten/EIS 

U.s..ueJ>=rbrent of seam yRECEIVED DOE-RL 

Riabend :)peratims Offi ce 

Post Office Sox 550 

JUL 1 I IW 

Richland, Washington 

4az W. Holton' 

WM DIVISION 

As An ott mizatian vitally co camel with th e miintainence end protection 

of rav water sauces and the pvoductim of quality, potable drinking 

water the Mid-Columbis/Laachutes Suosectim of the Assrican Water works 

Association wtuM li ke to voice its wncem and opposition to the pla nn ed 

events at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Wastdngtre State. 

The thought that the Federal Government would cenv5d this facility 

as a repository for the nation's moleao waste causes usgceat alarm. 

Resent disclosures by Washington State soul Federal Officials have chaeh 

that Hanford bas long been using abusive waste disposal tecluiWes which 

base causal gross contadoetion of the grourclwater on the Reservatim. 

Tbeee "packets" of mntanuente. are yielding levels of urmI.. tritium, 

nitrates mad other lea level radimucleotides which are w acceptable. 

Officials at Rackaell Han£asd claim these "pockets" of Remy contamination 

are localized, but admit that the radioactivity will eventually make 

its Say lot. the Columbia River. The U.S. Geological Survey, Nnclear 

Regalatovy commission, a d the US-EPA all mport dust redimucleotides 

fmn Hanford could leak though the basalt layer under the Pese[vatim 

and mntawwto the Columbia River. Radiological CTenirals are the mfy 

chemicals regulated by the US-EPA in the National Interim Prime, Drinking 

water Regulations which have a direct carcinogenic effect on animals. 

These toxic agents a re accumulative aM the point of vies' that law levels 

of radimucicotidom is no Cook. for al arm is ridiculous and iitesp esible. 

observes effects at the present time do not detract I. the affects 

to which our r*;hdmn and their chiJuicen will be exposed. Maury communities 

along the Columbia River depend m underlying aquifers for the sauce 

of their. 

potable water. Contemostim of the Columbia River will ]fad 

to the destzuctim of these so 

The original Federal assessment an e min x. n tal impact for the Hanford 

site have nos' co re under :attack by tM Washington State Nuclear Waste 

Sunni, who state that the U.S. Depatbrent of fheryy failed to speak to 

maser of questions, incl ud ing grrnonwater carv e ant sold omtamrstim. 

The determination of risk assessment for eM five sites ibwght to be 

clear candidates for the final. repasitacy desigmtim, clearly stw^ 

the Hanford Reservation as a purr fifth mice. This exaninatjm was 

carriol out as scientifically .based as possible in the attempt to rmov 

bias twnd the selecti on process. By t he panel's can aLnissim, Haford 

was last on the list yet we see it selected amoung to, top tho se candidates. 

caidates. 

Casualty of the selecti on process involved in Lou site selecti on has 

Clearly been mislaid in fawn of Political pmsmurrs by seBbVM states. 

2.1.1 

2.5.5 

3.5.3.11 

3.5.4.3 

2 .5.5

t 2 °= 

(,_ 

01'7 

Ha[doad Nuclear Handswat£oa 

Page z 


JUL i 11986 

WM DIVISION 

2.5.5 £)pope iffc a[NOr t tY aW a not al o tk„ fa ty h0 £mx m n t 

has enjoyed do the Pont N pvnitoring its en activities. The regain 

of this grn£toring ere clear, with the gross contea nmtion of griendwater 

on the Resdtvakion, exposure of workere to kcatanfnatal drinking 

water. arc[ pour waste disposal/rtenagarent pea ntices as a result. The 

future of the groundester aquifers, bordering and underlYiag the Cohmbin 

River dreiirages as well as the river itself, demands net action be, taken 

to prevent any further contakinatfon £ms taking place. The livability 

Of the region and the emixmment need to be protect i fmn th e thavat 

o£ radi anucleotides whose Calf-lives exrenal the Sffetige o£ irc[ividuals. 

Pe urge pro to elrolhate this threat anal prevent any further wntsdnation (1) 

of the regi on to protect what we [eve any Nut we will give as an in - 

heritan de to cur [hildten. Tha,k ypu for your auppert and assisted+ 

fn. of the nest critical iseues you wi ll be faced with in tM futute. 

Sfnc 1Y 

Mcacan tinter kbrka Associati on 

Hid{ohubia/UesUVtes Subsection 

N 

C) _ for: John E. Houses, Fragment 

£Orion R. Stahl. CManien 

Public Health and 

_ ester n.° l ; ty Cnnnittee 

JEU/bre 

ornSeretor Rob Pacbmod 

Report. Hark Hatfield 

Govornor Vic Atfyeh 

C yeesren ROU Rain 

Senator Had Jetnstalt 

Repteamtative Wayne Faahueh 

(3) 


To: Rich Holing, E.ls., 

WM D IVISION 

H.S.. 1#p't of 1WgBy, Richland Operation office, 

P. 0. Box 550, Richland, WA, 99352 

Input, re Hanford as radioactive waste 

AL I 1 1966 July 9,1986 

Owl 

site, of Joseph I. Miller Jr. M.D. 

My main input x111 concern the prose^ butng used in selecCfe d this site. 

Fame three different angles, public information, and therefore opportunity 

for meaningful involvement in the planning yrocess, has been inadepuate. 

Until the public is fully informed, further consideration of Hanford should cease. 

kbile potential icpacts on eater quality have been at least superficially 

addressed, the public has not been informed of the direct connection between 

eater they ard was, depending on far. drinking, with no risk from leakage 

at Hanford. May have not Men told. that the deep wells. ftwo .which Portland 

water drinkers care drinking. last February, are at risk be cause of Hanford, 

both via the nearby Columbia River, and via uncharted deep aquifers. If 7OO.00o 

People who must drink. this water whenever Bull Run worst Mcomes too turbid, 

Russ, and sees told, that the safety of this water has a direct tie-in with 

radioactive waste disposal at Hanford, they would rise up against a Hanford choice. 

The people's power through Congressional veto. has Teen m zzled,through 

/^ 

3 . 5 . 4 

'I '( 

2 ,y . y 

lack of public information (as described above) concerning has many Oregonians - 

have a life and death stake in whether Hanford is chosen. If the existing eater 

(or possible suggestion) 

source comectioneith Hanford were made known, it would Menge obvious 

that ware people in Oregon (302 of nor population in this state), have e 

stake in the Hanford selection process, than is the case in Hashin,ton state. 

/^ 

3 . 5 .`4 

This increased knowledge could pressure congress into giving Ore... equal 

'I '( 

Rawer, co that of Washington, re veto any choice of Hanford. 2 e. 1 1 

.3 

.3 

(3) 

Before any action is taken there should be nose scientific discussion 

among all interested scientists of pertinent disciplines. I have not seen any 

evidence that this her 

of happened. The âapartment of Fnergy, which has a 

2.5.5 

conflict of intere st, aaems to heccorrâlling the exchange of scientific 

information. 

^ ( 

aesceccfvssy apbmictea,^"g4-(- ' 

M-^. 

nicer E. M H.H. (retires ,0c . , 9 

physician) 

pnysihian ) seals E. azmnr Rd., gay ,n ,or 2HSs

€ - 

UK 

0.1e 

001f 

tt • 

115 Locust Street 


July 8, 1986 

July 10, 198E 

/1 

'N 3.3.4. 2 

I--• 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS 

Mr. Rich Holton 

MME 

RECEIVED DOE-RL HANFORD NEARING 

P.O. Box 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 

550 

JUL 1 h N66 JULY 

Richland, WA 99352 1 0 ,. 198E RECEIVED DOE-RL 

Bear Mr. HOlten: 

1 am writing in lieu of appearing at the public hearing in Richland on July 

R ' - 

3 .3.1.1 1) 1 stro ngly oppose underground storage of waste at the Hanford site, or 

at any other underground site. 

C C 

2. 5. EJ 2) 1 believe that the N-Reactor, largely responsible for these wastes, 

should be shut down. No new waste should be allowed to accumulate 

until a Safe solution (one approved by the ODE and independent agencies) 

is found. 

2. 3.2. 5 

3) A new environmental impact statement is needed, one by an independent 

agency. 

4) The emphasis should be on waste retrieval, not longstorage. 

-term 

3 . 4.2 . 2 5) Waste should not be transported sera SS the country. 

2.5. 5 

6) The credibility of the WE is dubious, especially recently with the 

latest press releases regarding toxic releases f ro m the Hanford. It 

is more than a little uncomfortable to be living downwind. 

cc:GOV. Booth Gardner 

Senator Evans 

Senator Gorton 

Rep. Foley 

- 

VIM DIVISION JUL 1 4 10 

Dear Sir., 

WMDIVISION 

Sincerely, 

j , G« ({.., 

Juanita Marie Wallin 

This letter is submitted 4. 11. of verbal te.ti..... on the 

issue of siting a nuclear waste depository at the Hanford 

Bite. 

I would like to go. record as opposing. this plan. 

It appears cleat from sll information available that the 

Hanford site is a poor choice for a nuclear repository.. 

currently stored nuclear waste materials are already leaking 

into the squarer withinSD to 20 years Of storage. It Is 2. 1. 1 

inconceivable that this site could contain was tee for the 

thousands of y.are necessary for deterioration of 

radioactivity. 

If the federal government's argument on the use of the 

Hanford site rests an the supposed imperviability of the 

conteimaent vessels, the recommendation should be rejected 

out of hand. To. not possible to ..sure that a container 3.3.5.4 

will last any appreciable I ... t4bf time;. the human race has 

no experience with projects of this length or magnitude.. 

While my true feeling is thaVke should not be faced with the 

choice of placing this deadly mAt.ri.1 anywhere on this 

planet, I would at lest favor an option which would not 

result in the inevitable pollution and decimation of 

southern Washington, northern Oregon and the entire Columbia 2.1.1 

river valley. A "safer" site would be one which is not only 

geologically§ table (which Hanford is not) but also self 

contained, and not draining into major river systems or 

water table.. 

Eh.od, you for the opportunity to make my opinion known on 

this ôbject. 

Sir. 

b 70 n"1" 

4. 

D. Resale Bremer 

2222 BE Salmon 

Portland, OR 97224

,M 

020 020 

odz 

&ZO 

N 

ir: fi19 ftar«.v, Ui kfelgss (:G hl 

S'. c i^x ss o 

1A,CM ldmd f Ll:d Sti 47352 

1164A Sc bm•rl PHS bcr T)u • vP7 az- WdSTe Dls^sal Lkay,nr^ 

'l+la.IK yoD 

( jiuA ^ IM.c.a`..q 

3.3.5.2 June ^j 16. 1986 al j O car- VBa m200d6 TI, l $•IC. IL 'S 

a lwecs. l C

0 4 2 6 

zL' 

021 

021 

6c 


dUL 1 4 1986 

1VM DIVISION 

-/o A6 

^.. wòw^ ^vs>.Sm.l cr ..cG 

^'î ^^ h 

//^zexove /f>/-r/s+G .. r Cm / ..vtiâ.Lco ar a .ae^ 

w 

2.3.1.12 

2.5.5 

îGwm^ 3o gun- 2rv/r>3oxl ox Y.fi Cm^^ it! ^v eCre..^ 

/VaeZo c%>aos.^ !L .Ua.,.^ ^ / /3faa yeK GG ^waU 

9^ %.eo LuuZlc.,. >ueoawa,e- yu..f n.Zr..hm.^. 

iQs a.tr..-â.'.+i a^/.^nflau O i G^ J^.wr. ./t3iw Gxû.z:eCy 

oGe .,... a/ ^X.v .scC' {o^ ccxsûuucff 

re.,.f-. 

-.e m'.y.. NeexeeL ¢/iawG / ^6 / 'ui-uY z m.. 

^^ pd /3.a'. Laid Puvcrxf 2nlK J%E9GK s^'Y.tc. 

w..G{ u 

^ c 

^° 

h nJ was? 2.2.11 

do ,ao cCf-â6Gc .Tad' Y13â u.6 f^ iac Cam.... 

br .sn/ G^ a...e/ Y-luso-u^lLy /îacoir^% 

^.P.lb..- 

oa3^fi° iLE /9 

^^^^ Gam' 

9â/2 

3o ape>son Os^^ >i»^c..Y M /.mad Ge î^ ^ 

'7ws/,.w.- coos7: Ri. ^ i^^ Gi-d^y cî /finâr^! 

,^,,,I fl , > Ln-n•- clun.G Loaaâ'd G^ Y1.e. ^ '"+d 3^ 

TÔ^^'. 3o aoce^^L i..'.. ^fca.u.^, o^ y^ ^ra^. 

gvGsua.!'a.+/^ z^T' w1w 1^.^ Zvh Luo^ C^Gpw

022 RM 

Oregon Rainbow Coalition 

P.O. Box 6797, Portland, Oregon 97228.6797 

To: United State. llepavtmant of Energy 

prom: Cregen Hainbov Sosliti.. 

Subnitted Ey: Susan Giese 

RECEVED DOE-RL 

dUL 141986 

WM DIVISION 

July 10, 1996 

RECEIVED COE-R' 

Oregon Rainbow Coalition JUL 14 06 

P.O. Box 6797, Por tlan d, Oregon 97228-6797 

WMDIVISION 

oe^ 

N 

Consents no the Draft Em rirokmental Dnpact Statement - Hanford Ilnfenee Wastes 

Whereas: 

- the present ;storage tasks at Hanford are inadequate, given their history of 

lea4aga.. 

- the HS WE does not p resently have an adequate monitoring systm to detest 

task l.eekege. 

- redloeative to lsekaga present health haserde to the population of the 

insediate area, and to surrounding populations due to sespxge of ncutaml natsd 

donned water Into the Columbia direr. 

- the Draft. SlS - Sanford Defense Waste offers four options, with no clearly 

stated prefe rence. 

Therefore: 

t - Me DS DOE should hosediately implement an ongoing inde pendent audit of their 

2 2 a 13 waste mevegement activities at Hv ford. 

3.3.4.2 pre sent defense waste should be transferred to a'Monitored Hotrievabla Storage 

facility while a permanent solution (peenibly reaulting 'POs the c ombination of 

the present Draft SIS an d eitiones- ...at.) is tho raughly resaerohed. 

Whereas: 

- the HS WE chose Hartford an one of three poseible sites for a permanent crsas=ial 

Monitor,, regesdleae of it's Saes place reeking of five apes. 

- the E .ident has detemdned that civilian spent fuel can be co-mingding with high 

level floc. waote.I.. repository storage. 

- site ssI.ti. far the ..e..d repository site fins been postponed. 

- 2/3 of the fadmoxft Vvmvinent • s high level anelear waste inventory is sto red An 

leaky tasks at Hanford. 

Therefore: 

fle 

Sanford 

vhichinaludae S bothrthe siEnfofthe reposi pry andathe storage 

mole. at. at Sanford. 

'.rhereaos 

- the SS DOE is a devernemrt agency Which I. ultimately accountable to citise en . 

- decision. concerning the d,xfoael or —1— to Se of the utmos ț importanoe 

for the health of the pre sent popaietion an d for that of raters generatio ns . 

Therefore: 

-. the 0 WE sh ak 

an politioal consideration.. 

2.3..3 l 

ould me th ese decisions hosed on. sound, aeiantitic kmvledge, not 

2 e'2 e 1 

- the DH MR. hou1d demonst rate leadership on these loans. by bringing together 

the beet of ideas and kvowdedgs. 

3.3.5.4 

- t he deafsihn making pre p... moat. include eitiess, input son, the US WE ...t 

p 

fellow your, ore guidelines concerning notification of citisen groups particularly notification of affected Native inariaeh tribes. 

2 e 3 e 2 • 8

0 

N 

U1 

023 

0"2 

Letter in lien of assebamf f oe s Sohn Ustasls a U.S. Departmnt of hhemy July 10, 198. 

on the subject of storage of radimaive worts at the •""_ford Rsaa vatian 

neat Richland, Washington. 


JUL 1 4 1986 

WM DIVISION 

`, ran is Sohn Bartels, I as a retired joumalist eN a forcer make s, of 

the. Elyen Weir 6 Metric Board, the e a ieipel electric sal water utility in 

Eugene, 0re9on. 

In. 1970 I stonbW cote the a snaing stay of the tedioaetivs onamt:ation 

N of the CoLUMUa :fiver in il, 1950' 3 acid 1960's while I vas dolnkf teaeazch prior' 

kF to t" ^h laser Bhgulatory COmstssbm hearings in St. Helens, (1 e9er an siting 

+x on the TOOjen stack ' . Plant. 

t_ 

v 

'O At tat tin, I dismverad tint the DDB achally measured the sonnet of 

i-r 

N 

mdiactive metals in to bodies of specific v -Lies of this emtaminatim in 

their oamonii hos m to masts of Dre9on amt Washington scats and al on g to 

CO1.rnbia River. T't?9e victLre included asfoad wrkea in Willapa Day, wash, 

0 ingtn amt 1ticWway, Oce_on and their children -oho ate mnam anneal she llfish 

U 

0 smi o this vsy xmaivef what is appropriately called in mietiflc jams "a 

body harden of ôeati%ro rtetels" including esime strmtius and zinc 

For 25 ye arn I have staml tat tl, +Odieal histories of these isforhurmtas 

would provide mn 1=b a pogo£ Of to dangers of this nuclear mulstta ud.t'r th e 

uaaa of the alarms River that you are still blit hely continuing. I eve raisai 

this commation of every available aomrtunity: sitinq of to TeOjm nuke Plant, 

.Seating revia.2 sad hetringe an Trojan, see a press aide to U.S. F paamatb O 

St v:aawr, my electlen m are of th e six entih. ear electric utility acmḋ - 

siomes in the U.S. in 1978, se a a, her of to Sales and Imislatim Nmdttm 

OF tho Nearian pulhic Bnnr Amatiattes, in Ue aft ma th Of the Thee "Atha I, 

land nuke aaid ant, and now in to a Ḟ Oaath of nuke ac ident in to U.S.S.R. 

Usetals.lettee P.2. 

.023 

RECEIVED DOE-RL °`z 

^^ 

During this time I think I mat have experienc ed just about every Ity 01 

JUL 

1 d 11986 

inertia, baa,-pmsing, cplbrbmisn, nest-feathesi , irmslcesiblity arch detait 

kman to mound. 

Usually the people corking for the Private seater ant a etars keep their 

jobs hal their n ouths shut Ie3mdazy pti. stoned here are John Zeigler, 

w blew the whistle on inadequate- design work by BmItteal (brpomtim m the 

T 3= plant The Y1 1l leguUMry Camdse sent his letter to Bechtel 

na-tion his his job arcs mve,.-i ng UP to Bechtel screw ups Un til they were raised 

before £o3esal holies again in 1970 am cousin, Trojan to be shut den for ten 

nnta in 1970. 

0 

Stew_ Stshlo9 blew Ca whistle what Paaks Ll diametinued me ammtal on- O 

itethrg Of hanford karts in 1979 arch rtanged to may in corporate huxeau¢atic a N 

li'am l on g smagh to passes UxOeiell into rammdn4 necessary testing again. 7 

Bafcra Bteve raovx3 on to = he zee for mnyass against "Atonic Mike" 3ks1brem k, 

longt-e merge assn Eton Hereford and cartel Aterdc Mike's slide into oblivion. 

Qk the other en3 of the sale w have Unman cm ammo Ujs A§aver cola 

[aims hall s la nt'daaysr mtleale imah, is at wh en he is asedn, for reelection "t1 

eel huskers do"n after. (D 

leas this I Seams? that that ag=.reim of corporations end politician, 

d 

poefite, konvenionce and threats, weld net help them local rsdic islet victiss. 

Tber we have to mtinwolear amt moron tuasmOecim. She antinmlear 

Waauarmies ors dmeendent m £ollanna t he trends being picked U, by the journelists 

:Ax) if they =='pin mployed, are sitar seld- or ignorant or worse. 

As a result Case 'emetemd tmel bureaemies" haven't trnatsl the crussd¢ 

news hurry to hel, these v as in Unman sod •;Ashingthn and to slat seal light 

m •drrt yon peopl e . as doing to us ant`: your pee renh at Useford. 

-2- 

0 

O 

x-h 

M 

(D 

7

p,3. 

023 024 

REGI:IVED DOE =RL July+ In 

\ 

I'l:tir, 

°f z • JUL 1 n 1986 X1--11 (( IXAU^ 

Bixtels latter 

}b 

WMD IVISION -^Y'044 

N 

ch 

Went .eels m m done is (1) force discln.•'ae of tta iuninrd ..Dine ley 

O ocm eranlOatirms of ten ssafeod xarlw_ra and ilmtr children (2) identifieatien 

2. 3. 2. 8 end notification of these P 1. (3) ux lioal eXmld.. tons for canwcs and f4wlly 

surly ad c lusims .rout this i limtary in hens. exposurn m 

high leusl radiasct ueste.. 

Nd so hanrable Un'eacrats as gentleren I na. -ay mic 

2. 5 . ..5 afmr 15 yens 

Dena m rest en y ,mWilli ^ sroulders. 

of evasimr, secrecy a.a deceit that this .s .ibaity tens fi.auy 

a, I ) you will say tlmt this is a l lit; latter and yw ca. only 

Lo W.ux tta .politician. in tM lles'y, #âNnistm.:^ direct you m do. gut I 

vq lore you m 1c inm yo.¢ wale if tla Ptxswre hae + got alresd'l ^sl it 

inm a piece of glass and m not eeIIam Albert blmer wro clairred to be only a 

txtaocrat W a abstt q ten =r s Of his Political mas . but in' r so- 

"tam the estias Or. 3o}m GoiSan, wen . ^°'°' one ea these radi"actiiwt,ss 

while a q, usbs Sm mt and ,sys dr"med Wt o£ the scientific and 

def nsc estahl..t f being a. msp:msible-hural t q ad miainc questions 

atrn^x tM_ ef_fsc o9 tmren tei.ys of this Pattrnra's tax m mlpel m open. 

J V' r tV Jkku nu^^ Op nterU l 'u onded_ r Wv ^Ma m 

Ju a c^ ,)posQ AAtn ^2 ru(eleaA 1,4(di 

° wj c&n ,^' Lo a ntra wc-Wc ALa-> Cc1 1nlnlnatâ U 

rru ^WOMb 9-KtIk,0A 0 unz -&qp 2.1.9 

1^ Wye .paa^G^^ -Laactil,ar^^ 1 aôÂr ^2rêlc, U,^„l^(r 

Wy e) ^t^ a^{e . 

j do R'o ^ all a)wul ..t, to t4vd In rk.o u I FF 

A/A u3 lina^ WO' Dt3 W\a.Y i"ucr a ^';,-ulian.cn# 1,e>J'ITn 

Mu 

onoV ^ afnDD * A F^^c cLol.^ ^îo^(v r.^ emu _ 

Fpi _a^ uzR I n W â Y 4 1 Fit o,LQ ^âC r y -ilt D do 

T`lwR (in-^ 1' \dLP ^l lob(D rl( Lf u^dG In ctrl 

wWl 1wu_ na^lao^t_P,,,y a^, tirJ,, I^^ eiJ h^ A,e 2.5.6 

In -}p .6h) (I l,"c lA nr/ 'îIN i1 i In ^4lo I 1 tQt t1.1C3 0P 

'S.!m Panels 

ib 11n 10744 

4ttla.cF OR 97210 

RECEIVED DOE-RI 

JUL 14 1966 

WM DIVISION 

\-P FLLUA;R WR to+ j RO_r..” '{T: 3" r i\ Y ml.l- 

\11 p 

;NL(.n, -UJI11\F+et_I -( fir , ^ 4(4 1-1 

U C 

.QV î^Ck1^..,.1,17^ enn-^ ri, I Jii.l^ ,ll 4h- I^ÎI(,lT h(_ .

024 025 

RE CEIVED DDE 

-1l,,A C,^.1 w^ k'At â 1,o ll.^...^(l A+) u'a ti.U.l^^ Ip 6'n fiClLt cov 'RL 

Ohos 

2.5.6 

iû.^t i Cîl iklCAl1aR(^. W^LQ,tIQ{ lli,2 V^1L. ° 

J V 

N-^C^.lc:.l k Nc'^J^G ^â an[ t'^x.t.t^tC. 't'i^Y. 1A. `'I ;t - =e . 

air _lattjti t{-L,ckJ.aJ 61 li t,,x 

,ae,' 

IY', 

d 

.:r1 ty, , '^ o_ju i tL)"^j l OvC11(ck L cx4 Ed, To WHO- IT 

(l ucolwsmm 

MAY Cevicersii 

h I vcv in Jko i 

' - 

at0 c4 [04 ^(^p Y-Is a wR Y-w 

Yduewh(euopgeyon 

amaddCnmmiebov. 

Diui.lLm 

ck'J 0.c 310.3A.n,q rv,, u nay UCAC-Q 

`J O 

rowna.o^ s):a 

y^^1 } 

(M))1,8d31) 

WMDIVISIOry 

U 

The Multnomah Connto ?oard of Commissioners, 

.^ :A:,itnomah County, Oregon, Nish to .submit the 'e. 

enclosed Rna0lntiu11 naiGaA hV the.. Board relating to 

Hanfnr.'. they and related huclear "f.ate Issues, and have 

re a into the record of the Proceedings heard in 

vo rt]aa , Ore gon nn this dale. 

N 

v ^,t^,(( LL^t.tMN Yyt(L/ submitted this 1O[h da y of ./niv, 19 86. 

Bncl nsnre

025 025 

^lrm'e

"a 3 

q 3 , 

a 

^F sy 

025 025 

pers 


N 

t0 

RECEIVED DOE. !L 

JUL 141%6 

.cf to w.d. 1t.k....ogre. of .omprah... ivm national o .niW,¢'BF^1S6?41oon 

eologlc media for selection of the first nuclear waste r rrlository I -etiltc ing 

^001091C considerations as primary criteria for identification, lnv=:e cleat ion 

and selection of potential aicss, 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the notice of this Resolution be made known to 

the Secretary of the U.S.Oa p art.ent of Energy, the Bona. In ... I., Committee or 

the U.S. Con g ress, the Congressional del.,dtion of the .Pacific earth... c, ocher 

Oregon and Washington Jurisdictions potentially affected by the proposed 

re positor y , end entered let. the official public nearin g, record of the 

U.S.Depart ... t of Energy. 

DATED thin day of March, 1085 

Pen l..n n 

Commlaeloner ern 

Gretchen efOu ry 

Co.mi.si ... r 

by 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. OREGON 

fall B umena 

Presidin g OfflCer 

Car013ne MS ler 

Commlealnner 

Gordon .hbdburne 

Commissioner 

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JUL 1 4 1986 

FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON 

WM DIVISION 

In th e matter of Requesting a Delay in ) 

the start up of thhePlutoniumUranium Extraction ) 

Factory. in Washington, in Order el Opportunity 

1 R E S O L U T I O R 

Provide 

an Opportu of ty for an Environmental ) 

Impact stud y . 7 

WHEREAS, the Federal Government Is working to renovate a Plutonium-Uranium 

Extraction .(PURER) factory for nuclear weapons at the Hanford Nuclear 

Reservation in the Tri-Cities area or Eastern Washington scheduled to 

start up in October of 1983, antl 

WHEREAS, the,. as a histor y of I.di... Live was to leaks as well as routine 

release of radioactive wastes In gaseous and liquid form at the Hanford 

Nuclear Reservation which is a short distance from the Columbia River, and 

WHEREAS, the Board OF County Commissioners for Multnomah County as a local 

health authority, has a great concern over the impact on public health of 

Radiation Plutonium an the food chain of the Northwest and the risks 

involved in Increased transportation of high level plutonium on Oregon 

highways, and 

WHEREAS, it Is the perception of the Board of County Commissioners for 

Multnomah County, Oregon that the development of a new generation of 

Nuclear Weapons by the Federal Government violates the spirit of Ballot 

Measure Five, through which the voters of the State of Oregon called for a 

Traces in the development of nuclear arms. 

NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of County Commissioners for 

'Multnomah County re,.a.ts of the Federal Department of Energy and the 

Congress i...I Delegation far the State of Oregon that the y seek to delay 

the proposed start up of the PUREX plant in Hanford pending an 

environmental' impact stud y by the Oregon Department of Revi ronmectal . 

auality, the Oregon Health Department and the Oregon Department of 

Transportation regarding the potential health impact of the operation of 

the PURER plant an Hanford, and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of County Commissioners rag... is of 

the State of Oregon that at undertake the aforementioned studies. 

DATED tBIs 4th day of August , 1983 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON. 

25 • 6 

6EEAL) 

G'' 

BY 

`s^c..ily'^— 

led .,. 

( Pres3ping B facer 

i

4 

026 

026 

00Z 

W 

O 

3.2.4.1 

Statement of commissioner. Jane Van Dyke RECEIVED DOE-RL 

Clark Public Utility District 

Vancouver, Washington JUL 14 1986 

before the 

U.S. Department of Energy hearing on WM DIVISION 

Hanford military waste disposal options 

July 10, 1986 

My ... is Jane Van Dyke. I am .Commissioner of the Clark 

Public Utility District In Vancouver and I here tonight speaking 

on behalf of the PUD. 

Clark PUD operates a water utility which se rves more than 

11,000 customers in a large geographic area of Clark County, 

including the areas of Hazel Dell, Salmon Creek, Heckinson, 

Brush Prairie and Venerator, We rely ..elusively on ground 

Water to serve our customers, pumping from 16 wells which have a 

capacity of about 12 million gallons a day. 

In the next fifty years, we expect Water demand to increase 

substantially., We plan to supply most, if not all, of this 

demand by pumping additional ground water. 

The estimated total water demand in all of Clark County at 

that time will be 117,000 acre feet per year, or about 38 

billion gallons. Of this, about 75,000 acre feet, or about 64 

Par cent, roan be supplied through recharge from precipitation. 

The remaining 36 percent may require direct recharge from the 

Columbia River. Per this reason, we are vitally concerned about 

the future of Columbia River water.. 

We are very fearful that storage of any radioactive 

materials on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation could result in 

contamination of the Columbia River. I£ this happens, the 3.2. 4. 1 

ground water resources of Clark County and other areas located 

downstream from Hanford will be affected. 

Clark PUD strongly oppose. any long-term storage of 

radioactive materials at Hanford and I urge the Department of 2. 1. 1 

Energy to find a. more suitable site for disposal of these 

wastes. 

Thank you.. 

REaiVEii DOE-RL 

JUL 1.4 1986 

WM DIVISION 

aeA. VAN DVY.! 

(7 ta t— 

n m..an .r m... ce^my 

1 0. e.. Vancouver My 

O. BOaFPoS 

V--1 wss,

02 7 1 s 

W 

U.S.0epartment of Energy 


P.O. Box 550 

Richland, NO 99352 July 10, 1906 

Dear Sirs: 

O 07 I 

We wish to have the fallowing comments included in the official hearing record of 

/^ the draft EIS on Hanford defense high-level transuranic and tank wastes. 

2.1. 9 The basalt rock in the Hanford area is easily fractured." Existing factures 

already allow radioactive wastes stored at the site to contaminate groundwater. 

In turn this groundwater moves into the Columbia River which is so vital to 

fisheries, water transport and irrigation of the Northwest. Therefore, existing 

wastes must be completely solidified and stored to containers above the water 

table to insure that further groundwater contamination does not occur. 

/1 

3.3. 

. 2 With regard to considering Hanford for a high level nuclear waste repository, the 

4 

site is totally unsuitable. Hanford ranked last Of 5 sites studied in a report 

t required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Pct because of the fracturetl basalt problems 

2.1 . 1 mentioned above. In addition, most of the new waste Which would be stored at Hanford 

will be produced in the East. This means the waste will be transported ac rots 

country, risking contamination of large areas from accidental spills. Therefore, 

the Hanford site is totally unacceptable as a radioactive waste depository, and 

problems with nuclear defense wastes presently stored at the site confirm this. 

2.5.6 

The ultimate solution to the radioactive waste s to rage problem is to stop generating. 

these wastes in the first place. This requires a total shift in our thinking 

about national and global security. No longer can we afford financially, 

ecologically, or socially to produce nuclear weapons, which threaten our existence 

both from the force of their combined explosive power and from the wastes produced 

in their manufacture. Our thinking has to catch up with the reality that 

dependence oa weapons to resolve our differences is obsolete (no longer useful). 

Instead, our mutual survival depends on cooperation and coexistance. 

cc: Se na to r Mark Hatfield 

Senator Bob Packwood 

Representative Ran Wyden 

Sincerely, 

Walter C. Minticeskil Vicki G. Mintkeski 

6815 SE 31st, Portland, OR 9]202 

02 

RECEIVED DOEERL 

JUL 14 IM 

0"9 

wM OMSION 

A .5^ ^5 lion {ter fQe sx fe of 

N/ vUear W^fe: SFi ' >`'here os'e so .na„y 

4nL(,s 

p, amok' v , i of life in Space. 

Ldhy Cg n'r- Na nford use a plan¢'r besides 

Ear i-h {n dump '/'heir ^[vc /ea.r WC^S ^. Sf 

{!TG VS. i5 Lexpn.bfe of b 3!/di n9 horn er wnd 

acT3a,lly Con dvc f4»p4 /, "{e on orheryc l.cne fs 7'm 

sure Hartford ,S taxable o U.si n^ ono,Y er 

plane!- -f 1 

71,:s.GVny 

ûonr of /-he wu.s ye ,"s enda.,êr; ,,.q na">ture 

or people 

4nothcr su L5>

029 030 

cox 5 

d^ â 

. 

HANFORD STATENEH'I 

I. a® deeply concerned over what seem. to me to be a dismissal ofob- 

11646 S. .Morrison 

Portland , B:rriso 

DA 

jective evidence indicating that Hanford cannot safely be a nuclear 

- July 5, 1986 waste depository. Further, I am concerned over the apparent die- 2. 1 . 1 

" RECEIVED DOERL missal of concern by a majority of the residents and representatives 

AL I d 199 

of the area. 

Rich Holten/EIS 

U. S. WE 

WMDIVISION We who live here were not asked whether we anted to have nuclear 

P. 0. Box 550 


energy in the area. Because it is here and has been, we have 

already been unwitting guinea pigs in an on going experiment to see 

whether nuclear development and waste disposal are compatible with 

Dear Mr. Hafted! life in the region. Now, finally, we are asked what we want and 2. 5. 5 

are not heard, are not responded to. I find this extremely fright- 

I have read the draft EIS summary on Hanford defense waste disposal 

. 3 . 3 . 1 . 1 and believe e safest permanent disposdl of hightank 

-level 

waste, TRU, and spent reactor fuel capsules is geologic disposal. 

I disagree with the EIS assessment of the short-term radiological 

impact Of geologic disposals reference alternative disposal on 

summary page 17. If the highdouble-wall -level 

tank liquid wastes 

an be handled with a safety lae n at 0-9, th en so can th e single- 

When we express our verifi able concerns over destroying the habit- 

ability of the entire region through increasing the radioactivity of 

the Columbia River, political considerations take precedence and we 

ln1 

3.3.1.10 wall tank sludge. ening. I an afraid--for myself and for my children and for all 

N 

Nuclear waste managers have long claimed th e feasibility of 

advanced waste management technology--vitrification. It is 

other residents of this entire region. 

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 

Statements have been or can be made about the irresponsible risks in 3.4. 2. 2 

at Hanford current and future. 

transporting nuclear waste many, many miles across country . The 

Please add these comments to the record of public comments. 

accident in Ohio is but proof of the inevitability of a similar 

accident in the transportation of nuclear waste from east of the 

S 

Mississippi. Evidence already exists concerning the hi ghe r. costs of 4 .1.22 

Si incerely, gq 

^^ building a facility at Hanford, of the expected higher loss of life 

. Dan L. Rniesner in construction, and of the already existing leakage of nuclear 

waste. Mat sort of evidence is needed to have decision makers 

realise that a nuclear waste disposal site at Hanford is not only 

ill advised and irresponsible but positively negligent as well] 

1 

RECEIVEi. M&RL 

aUL IA 1986 

WM DINSION

.j 2 a 

tN 

+1 

\!i ^: J 031 

2 .1. 1 

If this hearing is sincere, then I urge you to realize and car ry 

back to Washington and to the Congress the message that Hanford is P:T 

a site that should be conside re d as a nuclear waste depository. 

Thank you. 

some 

WFIVED ME- RU - 

JUL 1410 

WMONISION 

duly 4. 1986 

00,6 1 

Peter Frothingham 

3131 N.E. Emerson 

Portland, OR 9 7 211 

YOU have listed 4 options coneeseing RECEIV ED QOEAL rMloactive defense C 

JUL 1 a 1986 

WM DIVISION 

R N Holt... 

waste- none Of the acceptable. May I ask wuy Hanford 1. ellosed 3. 3.5 • 1 

so continue runz1ng-producing anemia. if there a no safe may of 

disposal? I emaerecand Hanford produce. plutonium for the 

Fentegon-I suggest a bra option, give than the waste. I know 2 . 

C J . 

V 

you wan t t offer this optiong for too many people might vote for 

it. V. ..ad e to close down Monte. sad we moat never allow it 

to become tn. nation' natio. smOlear seat. dump. Let shoe. who mane the 2. 1 . 1 

deoa.i.n to make it, seep 1t. 

W 

W. 

c^^101.9 911K 

2

RECEIVED DDERL 

6/11/86 

799 N. 79th JUL 14 M 

Seattle, M 98103 

032 

WM 111VISION 

003 ,A 

RECEIVEGc.Rl Conservation Plus Windows, Inc. 

Autnoriiea HF Dun n KcrgseaP Dealer 

JUL 14 c Part 

108812 th ve 9u 

Avenue Mvh Nd n k 980 

W MONIS ION Issaquah. Wa3hington 98027 1. 

2061 39 1 g319 

-YYOt^ ^7tl i 1 o"^t4c . ^.ZJ' 

033 

o4a3 

BIT 

i .l fi.a.YY 

Mr tie ('Ye„ 

z,—,.—z,_ ^—/—fir—3 

W 

2 L .1. 1 

Mis is in regard to your ..eking public input on the 

question of using Hanford as a permanent nuclear waste 

repository. I am a community college Math/Science 

instructor. Spring quarter of 1986 I taught a course titled 

'The Problems of Nuclear Arms.' An part of my college ...ree 

ve discussed my Hanford. We watched a video that had been made 

on campus the previous year in which Hanford personnel 

and members of WASHPIRG discussed the pros and coma of using 

Hanford. We looked at the government report on Hanford and 

other writings on the subject. 

Our unanamous opinion was that Hanford was an unfit site for 

nuclear waat. repository. The site is geologically 

natabel. Although travel time could of the radionuclides 

could be, as long as 80,000 years, it could also be as short 

as 20 years. "a close proximity of Hanford to the Columbia 

makes this too big a risk to take. Why is Hanford 

being consederd then? It is purely for political reasons. 

On the one hand Hanford is already Owned by the federal 

government. On the other hand, the Eastern states bhigh 

have most of the waste also have more of the votes in 

Congress. Please take Hanford off the list of candidates 

3.4.3.1 before an accident many times Wo rse than Chernobyl oc cu rs in 

Washington state. 

Sincerely, 

2 h G ê Qom_ -^ _ 3.3.5.2 

--was rte 3 -- cH.â^r^-..^z- ^^^—T-^^3 

,uâ 2 ^,.^ ^. s ^ ^r mod, J 

ztAe- 

Mecdone C. Coskey 

' tC?ear DUAant¢eM8FGOgc'.Ch HPAAr"Ovcd 

Ise aR In Wgtlp6 [p kmde WY emva elmppY wl[tlOUrpmlu[Ratltl Sp,vlR. 

a/b s0 [MSewp spSOUrtes as cup/I

033 033 

31The vast majority of dual pane windows are too close together tc 

properly insulate At least 1 ]/4" dead air space is needed (American Society of 

Heating, Refrigeration and A r Conditioning Engineers); most dual pane is only 

1 r2" 

'x detection is, 1 -- only half tree story. The Retrotec Door Fan also 

measures the extent of the leakage. While the fan is running, a built in 

microcomputer displays questions on its screen which the operator answers. The 

computer then determines and prints out the home's air change per hour, and its 

equivalent leakeage area. 

W 

Q) 

4- 

f= 

QJ 

H-a 

C 

E 

00 O U 

O 

4: Neither dual pane windows nor storm windows are effective in stopp_'g 

air leaks, which account for half of the heat loss through windows (U.S. 

Department of Energy). 

Althoughplastic sheeting was the most efficient at the time, it has its own 

dlaadvant ages; inconvenience. unattractiveness. and the necessity of yearly 

rep laceaent. 

The ideal treatment for windows, according to the MIT study, is an interior, 

rigid acrylic in a non-aluminum, magnetically sealed frame that would eliminate 

air leaks through the cracks in windows. Happily, B.F. Goodrich has taken the 

lead with that concept, and interior acrylic windows are gaining recognition 

and popularity with both residential customers and commercial concerns. The 

added benefits of this type of system are a virtual elimination of 

condensation, or "sweaty" uinticws, draft , and the "cold shoulder" feeling one 

gets sitting near conventional glass windows. 

Proposed Expansion 

Asan established business. contractor and corporation, it is now our desire tc 

expand Conservation Plus Windows, Inc. This expansion will require a name 

change to Conservation Plus Home Services, Inc. Conservation Plus Home 

Services, Inc., will embrace all aspects of energy conservation and become a 

total, one stop source for energy conserving services. thus relieving the 

client of the responsibility of finding out who can do what to improve the 

home's thermal efficiency. Our company viii mare getting results our primary 

business purpose. In addition to B.F. Gcodr in:h Koroseal' windows we will 

install or subcontract other quality products add services to solve all the 

energy problems of the homeowner. 

Present Ray ownership and management of C.'cservation Plus Windows. Inc., consists 

of and Helen ^ Drougn :nusoand and wifei. Total rem ponei Dility for the 

W resides with the Ches oroughs Who have it:ves ted $30,000 into it. For 

expans ior. of the company, consultation will be needed in the areas of 

engineering, energy extension, accounting and law. Contractors involved in 

various energy areas will be utilized for installation of products. 

Blower Door as a Diagnostic and Marketing Tool 

Our primary tool for marketing and lead generation will be the Retrotec Door 

Fan. This diagnostic tool measures and locates air ini filtration. Known 

gene: ically as the "blower door", this equipment simply either draws air cut of 

the home or, conversely, pressurizes the home, enabling detection, through the 

aid of smoke pencils, of air currents in or out Home owners are invariably 

amazed by this quick anc simple deaccstration of lust where air leakage is 

occurring in their hones. 

The door test has tremendous impact on the homeowner; it arouses interest and 

thorougly establishes credibility and the need for conserving measures. Ghat 

better way to explain energy problems to the homeowner than to phys1wlly 

demonstrate them? 

The Retrotec Door Fan serves as a marketing tool in the following manner 

(1) A low cost, 30 minute retrotec test for the homeowner is advertised 

(2)A trained technician's visit establishes credibility and physically 

demonstrates a need for our company's services. 

(3) The salesperson's visit is easily scheduled because Conservation Plus 

Home Services, Inc., has high credibility and has demonstrated energy losses to 

the homeowner. 

(4) With credibility, lead generation and referrals are no problem 

Blower doors have been used in Europe, particularly in Sweden, for years and 

are just now being used in the U.S. They have been featured on "This Old 

House", " National Geographic", and CBS's news specia ḷ . "The Energy Crunch - the 

BestNay Out - . Presently there are very few contractors in the Puget Sound 

area actively using blower door technology. Cost for the complete Retrotec 

package, including the Door Fan. sales and marketing program, tools and 

supplies for the First 50 program (see next page), and training session with 

travel costs, is $15,000. 

The Market 

The market for energy conservation. both residential and commercial, is 

tremendous, especially during these times of spiraling energy costs. The 

typical home loses 40-601 of its heat through leaxs. 5aving that 40-601 

through house-tightening and application of such quality products as B.F. 

Goodrich Korosea. — windows makes much more sense than continuing to pay higher 

energy costs. Our company's scratch-resistant acrylic window system (Lucite SAR 

by DuPont), with the advantages acrylic offers in thermal efficiency, safety 

glazing, sound abatement and ultraviolet light infiltration, is especially 

suitable for commercial application. Blower door systems are available for 

commercial building analysis as well as residential. Expansion plans in the 

future would include purchase of commercial blower door equipment. 

The next energy crunch will be a severe one. causing a tremendous demand on any 

company With the talent, skills, products and services to solve energy 

problems. The bottom line for Conservation Plus Home Services, Inc., will be 

providing energy savings results. 

O 

C) 

O 

E3 

fD 

Q 

CD 

CD 

Q.

kj3" 033 

Save 30-60% on 

heating/cooling costs 

How to keep heating bills down 

without bundling up. 

CONSERVATION PLUS WINDOWS, INC. 

presents 

B.F. GOODRICH KOROSEALTm WINDOW SYSTEM 

"THE INSIDE ADVANTAGE" 

• Savo 30-60 % on houtg/eoobng cosh - rypcal pay back 3-5 year. 

• 2-3 umm moor energy eBi— than glass/aluummen smmt wind— also more eBuicnt than thermopan- 

• Dnman

m ®33 

Fixing the Problumis) 

Year 1 Rev.. P,ejectiane 

QJ 

The Department of Energy 's First 50 Program Will be emPlOyed. The program is 

called for 50 energy sa y ing products and adiose that pay back With a 50% 

return ed investment. "The way to wave energy le through a let of small, 

simple, mundane, ordinary, low technolog y measures. When you put enough of 

these together, the savings are not Just a feu percent, but a very substantial 

evinga in energy." ("The Energy crunch - The Beet Way, Oak'-, CBS Neu. special 

report). Theme small steps deal primaril y with air Leakage problems which are 

uncovered by the Door Fan, but the y also Include measures to reduce hot water 

consumption and improve heat distribution, among. others. 

Hanttii"ales Pro iecti0n Mont a I-3 

Grass Sales. 

Profit 

10 glower door testa 0 $100 $1000 $550 

5 House doctoring with the First 50 

Program p $1500 7500 3750 

W 

LO 

4- 

G 

v 

s 

0U 

U 

O 

v 

Side by side with the First 50 Program, our company will offer S.F. Goodrich 

Horoseal' and other quality windows. He will subcontract out other major work 

u.h ea heating, ventilation and air conditioning eYet... iRVAS): ceiling, wall 

and floor insulation and other energy saving products and services of benefit 

to the homeowner. We will rely on established, licensed, bonded and insured 

.."eccom. far all 9abCant...ted Da 81naa 9. 

The client will pleasantly experience: (1) Increased savings of an ergy in the 

3G-60% range, (2) assurance that Conservation Plus Nome. 3ervicea,Inc., will M 

one atop service company, and (3) quality control inspections which will 

Include, most importantly, a post blower door test. By using the Door Fan to 

conduct both before and after testa, Conservation Plus Nome Services, Inc., 

will Provide a level of quality control unknown to the energy saving industry. 

Wastvide Solariums 

Other quality Products handled by the company will include Westview Solariums. 

These well engineered, premanufactured solariums are a very attractive addition 

to any home. uestview Solariums are functional, a iry , goad locking solar 

collectors with many innovations for providing substantial heat for the home. 

Carefully designed features include customized, interior laminated beams which 

are treated for long life. These means are precisel y cut and bored, and 

display the beauty of natural wood as well as the strength of laminated fir. 

The solarium exterior features bronze anodized aluminum which is moth 

attractive and maintenance-free. Glazing can be ad.pted1 to the glen's needs. 

Single pane Elea. up through 1 3/9" triple glaze unite can be installed. 

Spacial glass such as Heat Mirror, low E, tempered or laminated safety glass 

may also be used. Theme exquisitely beautiful and functional .unrooms meet the 

demands of the moat discriminating homeowner, and are surprisingly affordable. 

2 New windows 0 $3000 per home 6000 3000 

1 Nestvfew Solarium 25000 12500 

1 WemrstOve 3000 1500 

3 Insulation 0 $1000 3000 1500 

Replacing broken window. with acrylic 2000 1000 

TOTAL, MONTHLY PROJECTION $47500 $22750 

Note: Commercial bids Submitted for garomeal— Wim GWW! $5000-$SO000honth. 

Commercial bids generally take several months for approval. 

Nonthlv Sal P i M hs - 

The 3-6 month sales projection does not exceed the first 3 month projection, 

except for possible addition of comaerical application of goroseal`^ windows if 

previous commercial bids are approved.. 

09[1111 1 P Months 6-12 

20 Blower door test. 0 Joe 2000 1000 

B-House doctoring with the First 50 

Erhard. B $1500 12000 6000 

0 

/7 

n 

0 

a 

C+ 

f1 

r'b 

fD 

CL 

a Hew windows .12000 6000 

2 Regicide .ola plOB B $25000 50000 25000 

2 WoxlykdVmm 0 3000 6000 - 3000 

6 Insulation 0 1000 6000 3000 

Replacing broken uintlowa xi1h acrylic 6000 3000 

Commercial installation of Koro ... I — uLmmdo w 10000 $000 

TOTAL, MONTHLY PROJECTION $304000 $52000

033 034 

Year 1 Projected Overhead and Operating Expense. 

One time e xpo®a: Retrotec Door Fan, sales 

and marketing Program, tooling and Supplies, 

training for installers, transportation and 

lodging for 2 People 415000 

î 

0034 

Year 1 Total of Monthly Ssoenditurea: 

u -v+AlrlN l) / M.ty Pfl'14J'3^ 

Shop overM.d - rent. lights, insurance, etc. 4800 

aQ^. 

4- 

Advertisin g 0 1000/month 12000 

Yelephom with answering Service 4200 

Contr'actor's insurance, pending , licenes. 2500 

!:. ^m v. tt -Gitabtx. ;^ . 4 - ^z a/. 

J:r lltl^VM.(" . fw.^1 tw3 

. •JA1i4 L^'AC 2s ^. ^.. 

( ' 

C) 

4J c 

fL 

'O 

•r 

c 

U 

0 

Legal. accounting, banking fees 4000 

YEARLY TOIAL (excludin g *15,000 for Retrotec Door Fen $33500 

Package) 

Philosophy add Par .... I Notes 

Bad" a strong coneervationlst, L e• coerned nc about environnental problems 

related to energy production. As acontractor, I an Interested in developin g e 

business that Is able to provide energy Savings results in the 30-60% range. 

fN (.sy.nC:4'L.':^/ 9_ L/^Q-/Y.1-i.V .GJY tu. 

,/Jt.YN,tI âi f t44lJ.hrn J µn.^-4i-;,.,^ 

Y /'JA'/./.A.^ll'nA.L 'P-(.2['3îCA- W,f 

.îcAU,,,cx^ i o- U*-v,llÂ.^f ,rrcrN-^. 2.1.1 

.('l'u..LpuJ t Ut,^ v : (Jot[^ti (t 0. 

'l . 

Printing ..III, - secretarial help . 6000 

The recent international diaa.ter in Chernobyl vividly de on.tratea how fragile 

our technology 1.. Risks for. add BUCK diameter. naturally increase AS e turn to 

nuclear Feuer for greater greater e ne rgy production. With regard to nonan 

Clear energy sources. fevlfte that our o thermal, 

plant An 

Centralia, Washington /with twice the. tp L apaE ty f Isaie ) C 15 

tone of nP i inute d that it Is the a nd largestof 

Polluti n 1n Wash ngt Fee Ali th t the ast xpeneive Atio 

Project th [ ce of the arth I. the pre. t atS pt t rest r fi h. To.. on 

our e n C lumbi Riv yetis Nigh 1 1 nu 1 ar t -01 p sa3 id rain, 

canoe depleti etc all' re indi atl e f the f t ST t the high t h ology 

approach has very ssri.u. long Car. environmental Problems. Jahn Nuir,. founder 

of the Sierra Club, w correct when he stated • When we try to pick out 

anything by itself, wefind s it is hitched to everything else in the universe . 

AS an ex-che.istry end Physics teacher, I have grave co terns about continuing 

to expand our technology to produce • e energy. A more connon-sense, low 

t ec hnology approach i Simply to use lee. by plugging the holes. Conservation 

an be A Say oflife that will not diminish liveability, but enhance the 

quality of life for everyone . 

rl4..i ^-11/'^-ft Q.cYVYUY(7N*-m'.. 

RECEIVCU DGE-RL 

4115 AJ V[Lh) 61 1,^ IV 

JAL I A 1906 e„mâ ter] îbyaa 

WM DIVISION - - 

Summation 

Quality Se not a luxury; it Is an investment. Conservation Plus home Services, 

Inc., a nue stop energy company, will be Proud to offer quality product. and 

services, beginning with the RetrotecBoor Fan, the First 50 Program, the B.F. 

Condtich goroseal° Window System and Westolew Solariums. The blower door 

demonstrates the problem.. Rouse tightening. Airti ght windowa, insulation, 

aolariuns, eta, all hel p solve thee, with the result of energy savings in tine 

30-604 range and quality central this tE such endeavors.

1 

035 036 

RECEIVED DC' .. _ L 9d//f 

006L 

2.1.1 "^ 

uUL14 06 !" "" a 

/d, lfr6 

HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

VJMDIVISION 

PUBLIC HEARING 

- 

.0035 

AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE 

RECEIVED 

JUL 1 4 06 

^ w ? rb ^zw^y r^ P 

1 - J^ ^ vt .e^,„^,p --j-^,t .,r/::.^- w ^J 

O 

,^.w....kry wt,r3y.. "- .^"`

Kj 

3 

03'7 

0037 

00037 

03'7 

eo37 

RAIFORD DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 


RECE'r, 

AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE JUL 14 M 

l^4 

o c)EEIJ 0.lO P hi G.^ ^

fi 

ig ,- 

^5 a 

m 1 

Js 

W 

CO30 

TTSalHOnx asFm^ TiQ{ u.s. vsuni gsrf oPa+mcy 

RECEIVED DOE-.2L 

sebmitted bv, Mcrgy Wi llis 

Portland, Oregon 

Dat 4n duly 10, 1986 

JUL 14 1986 

V/M DIVISION 

My acme Is Mors, Wi ll is, and I live is Portl and, Oregon. I m here to 

Present the yews of my family and mends. 

We reelice th e difficult taak before yo., had we do hair a viable solution 

to the melee., waste storage p roMM can be Lewd. 

We have man, ...came about the selection of Hanford m ova of the three 

2 . 1 sites which could became the nation's first high-level nuclear waste d,mp. 

First of all, of th e three sites under comidaatlon, 4anroni Ss the Daly 

site bisected by a sajct river . It is believed that water: would be th e most 

accessible cease to oar y radiation throughout th e region. Over 2 ed11.1ov 

people in Oregon and Washington live along th e shores of the ColumMa River. 

By the Department of ljargy'. own figures, over 155 .1111. gallows of nuclear 

waste water is being dwpal into the Columbia Weer awry year, and 3.4 billim 

gallons of chemical wastes are d,mi d into the Meforl se ll yeatly and are 

also finding their wry into the ColumMe. 

1he ability of the geological structure of the ar ea is also in question 

'for, the permanent storage of high-level radiomtive caste. The b it reek, 

2 .1.1 found below th e coffees at Hanford, is basically laysre of lava now foroed 

into fractured racks m the lava coolad.. This type of rack is known to eas il y 

crack and orumble. 

The Hanford area has already experienced earthquake activity the nuclear, 

3.2.2. 3 

Regulate y Commisslon ,claims it is feasible for an earthquako to reach as high 

m 6.5 on the Richter s.al. to t hi s area. Does this mend is to I.4 

If all of th e waste were to b e, tan-portal by truck, a shi poewt of radio- 

3.4.2.2 active wrote would arrive at Hanford every 90 ate t... Wart, of the tens aGa 

wed would carry the east. through Oregon (1-5,84.205 &395), thaaby jeopardicing 

the live s of essay people. 

pegc z 

it bas already been pruveo that aver th e pmt 40 yearn th e region ,un 

been affected by water vW a$rIxrae contrni.vation ikon Hanford. Yt the east. 

is to be transported thra h Oregon and busica upatram on the Columbia, we 

snider the increased fiche to our health. AadlovetSVe pollution is known to 

eamn a--- and birth defects. Mere is also the strong llkllhood for act food 3.5.5.1 

chain to be Contaminated by radiation. This would affect,ôt only, th e people 

in this area, hat would affect many people th roughout this country and th e world. 

Approximately 20% of Oregon'. economy Ss on bed ov the Columbia River. Can 

xe really afford to jeopa rdise. 20% oI ow coshes, an s e to we already Tense 

to be flawed and in a regioo . that is straggling oconomlcellyl 

Me Us.. Departm ent of A Wy will w 

as te $1.02 bi 

ll ion to 'study' a site 

at 

ri 

3.2.6. 1 

that originally ranked 1ps_t on their list, and . site we already know is 2. 1 . 1 

cacceptable. 

There is another question that we all most struggle wi th, and that de th e 

fact that each of the radiomtive waste 'to to stored aemexhere Is from the 

contlanad Tredwtim of n eelar wesiens. It is iscomprehonslble that we 

.i'lnue to laoduse mom to from weapons :-..production -ben act g.ver .t 2. 5 . 6 

doe. at know hon to aafay aeries of the 40 ,sore of east¢ which is presently 

bei a^ -tared at Hanford. Continuing to produce wrr awelear warheads to at 

the demands. of Cur pfesmt ABminietatlon Is not m sass tem. soluties 

to world conflicts aryl continues to baimt the health asd caeuxity of all 

Mexicans. 

More are eery, reas ons why Hanford is the poorest choice for th e ®anent 

mate ropocitory. I hays . tried is share a few concerns um yo. tow. my £ee lly 

cad fkdeela would ask you to placer weigh your decision carefully. We aek you 

to consider that if you. pact children: and grand-children lived in the aces 

saxuundlM Hanford, would you s ea t It to be the mom's swelee: dumping ground 


JUL 14 ON 

WM DIVISION

039 939 

C^39 


PUBLIC 'HEARING 

AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE RECEIVED DDE-RL 

1. How did you learn of the hearin g s? JUL 1 4 IUBB 

News paper — Radio _ TV _ Mail --WM[ )IVISWwork 

Word of mouth _ Other (please specify)p}^_ 

6l 

2. Did you attend one of the Hanford Defense Waste Open Houses in 

February or March? Yes _ No 

,Vol 

^R 

//FP^^Co ^L fl Y-CQ"'Ye êÔG.L!^Gr.^^,„-4^ a 

3. Did you attend one of the Hanford Defense Waste Informational 

Workshops in May or June? .Yes _ No 

4. Did You have access to 'a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement or the Summar y ? Yes No CL 

ale 

84^ s^-u-^t S^ 

? 5. Please rate each of the following: 

A 

Hearings moderator excetk 

Very Good Gg_otl Fair Paor 

Procedures for recording comments 

Air 

Ph ysical arran g emen xs .^, c orcA ^y— y„a d^ A rno astern 7C __ 

4ommen a hua.• u. c. .v^C.+nsd.inaaâau.^ 

Process for !runs resing t comment _ ^y 

Five minute comment period 

6. Please share any additional comments On ma y have about these hearings. 

wsr ia_i^kao^pa i +,.r q ice, ia, a^ i .^ - 

2.3.2.12 da L 

1t. Mâ Z 

X 

o- 

lhveuy, :unsAIO nV.i,..^J. Ice, W:I"ulhvt Lk4-Y,aal Ja,Q0t.y_ 

7. Anv salt itional comment .about the process of submitti ng wr ten 

comments on the Draft. Environmental Im pact Statement? 

d(^[elrintt'^V y /.•5.,[2m'ncrt%C[ifPSIC'—Er^^ . •• 

NCO min z2m 

-`7^ 

Alu 

^^ 

,/, •/- A... gyp[ 

WAILW"CO /Yl2D^Gi^^(/J 

a-W 

7^ Sung 

ie^ ^y 

iC 

eaV ch-r^/^'u,7^-o^,1ÛP^^k-eye 

2.3.1.14 

ay —t1;1 

THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS HEARING AND TAKING THE TIME TO FILL OUT 

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. 

^P//j'r'-^2^^• 

,^Z2G W ar>< ^'f 

©^ F"12 

"Y'a,.tig o/z 97201 

IVE60 

Lrl O

k 

.^ ij 

is 

BE ' 

3 Inland 

Empire 

Regional 

Conference 

RESOLUTION 

aa4 O 

REU : I JAG L : (XE_.iL 

JUL 1A 1986 

WMOIJISION 

oa4l 

Hanford .Nuclear ReservatiostRECEIVEi'r DOE-RL 

Statement by 

JUL 14 1986 

LION HONKER 

WM DIVISION 

4. 

Ul" 

3 . 3 . 2.1 

WHEREAS: the Department of Energy has issued Its Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement on disposal of defense waste currently 

stored at Hanford: and 

WHEREAS: the two basic options are to continue to stare the present 

and future nuclear waste at Hanford or to ship it elsewhere: and 

WHEREAS: continued storage at Hanford means the transporting of 

future defense nuclear Waste to Hanford and storage elsewhere means the 

transporting of existing defense nuclear waste from Hanford; and 

WHEREAS: any transportation of radioactive material poses some 

danger: and 

WHEREAS: transportation through urban areas creates more risk than 

through less densely populated areas; and 

WHEREAS: the Draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates that 

the Department of Energy will make available money to ensure adequate 

emergency response and that federal support is also available from Federal 

Emergency. Management Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Food and Drug Administration, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 

and 

- WHEREAS: local governments bear the ultimate responsibility for 

emergency response planning; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY 

RESOLVED BY THE INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL CONFERENCE: 

1. The Department of Energy is urged to employ the most favorable 

technological means to solidify and store hazardous wastes at their point of 

origin, and 

. 1.. The Department of Energy Is urged to choose that option which 

creates the least risk and requires the least amount of nationwide 

3.4.2.2 

transportation of defense waste, and 

3.4.2.24 

3. The Department of Energy and other federal agencies are urged 

to make available to local emergency response providers the support 

prom; setl in the Draft Environmental impact Statement. 

Adopted by the Inland Empire Be I Conference May 21. 1S IA. 

My name I. Don Banker, United States Representative from the 

Third District of Washington State. I am sorry that I cannot be here 

personally to comment on the Drat Environmental Impact Statement on 

the disposal of Hanford Defense High-level Nuclear Waste. This issue 

is very important to all of us and the decision we make on how to deal 

with the defense waste at Hanford will potentially affect our region 

for centuries. 

I em pleased that the people of this region have become s 

knowledgeable about this. issue. It is my hope that this increased 

level of knowledge and awareness will help to create better policies 

and decisions in the future. 

Ln making a decision on what to do with the roughly 43 years of 

defense nuclear waste already stored at Hanford, the highest priority 

must be the protection of the health and environment. nt. Presently, 

forty-five million gallons of high-level radioactive wastes are stored 

at Hanford, mo stly in 149 aging underground tank... More than 500,000 

gallons have Leaked from these tanks, posing a serious threat to the 

safety of the region. In the wake of these problems, Hanford must be 

brought into compliance as soon as possible with state and federal 

standards for nuclear and hazardous wastes. 

I share the concerns of Governor Gardner and the Washington State 

Advisory Council towards the draft EIS. More attention most be paid 

to a number of issues, including the geologic instability of the 

Columbia Basin, Yakima Indian land claims, and compliance with current 

state and federal laws on nuclear waste management and clean-up. 

The question of military nuclear waste storage at Hanford must 

also be Considered in the context of other nuclear activities at the 

Reaef,az iou: Ongoing production of plutonium for weapons procurement 

is increasing the amount of high-level defense wastes. Large amounts 

of low-level wastes have been dumped in open trenches and crypts which 

permit same radioactive wastes to leach in groundwater supplies. 

Hanford Continuesto -be a leading candidate for the dubious 

distinction of the nation's high-level commercial waste repository. 

In my View, it is dangerous and unwise to make one site the nuclear 

junkyard for all of the nation's military fired commercial nuclear 

wastes. 

3.1.4.26 

2.4.1.1 

2.4.2.1 

2.4.1.1 

2.3.1.14 

2.2.10 

2.1.1 

o ac< Hearer, FaFr n 

Fifth Hot . cnv not syubn¢. wx,Mngmn Msol Ghone Inch 45sw65 / mneh as 3556 

- bg 6 ra

f .- 2 _ f 3 0 i P" 

041 042 

^P 


dUL 141986 f; 


WM DIVISION aUL 14%86 

Fuel, 

. _- en0 a'. WM DIVISION 

A variety of factors make Hanford a poor site fee increased 

v M1t ano O.--na G..rce 

DOD wastes or the Commercial waste re p ository. Given the area's - F.D. Eox ssu 

complex geology, high grndwater ou levels and proximity to the 

Rvcbland. wrr :vas_ 

Columbia River, any accident at Hanford could have devastating 

3.4.3.1 effects for the entire Northwest. n..emen. 

2. 1.1 

Most experts had ranked Hanford last on the list of potential" to le o .rtum tv no 

to r tne. 

repository sites, but DOE placed Hanford among the top three. I, - xstes. t 4. cano ause er 

personally, believe OOE's decision was based more an politics than --a-='.. ano vn .n car e_azn .n rn.^ sup .roc c. 

scientific 

It appears that DOE e has selected Hanford for 

its cha to t because it n as the path of least 

a 

ltl sad-E F_'NEfJ'. Gees 

resistance, given Hanford • slong history of nuclear work. n - aS i.at 

a. a - ft sn nuld be wr r^nerrc _,., e 3.3.1.1 

DOEactio n has E e damaged the integrity of the 

,election process. Strongcorrectivesteps needed. I support t. t n 

GovernorG d recommendation that we temporarily halt the d t 3.2.4.1 

selection process, 

2.2.14 

g back to the characterization selection stage, a ra ,es , r,e o. -e.v ne m thew 

and review the need for a and r aitory. I will be working with a nusi o a, 

the other members of the Northwest Congressional delegation to push 

for the G s plan. 

t e 

while 

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 

3, 3.4.2 should move ahead with the Monitored Retrrvable Storage Facility to 

provide safe 

safe 

storage of 

wants until a final solution is in 

3.3.5. 2 

place. In addition, research into promising alternatives to deep t- n 

geological disposal should be stepped up rather than cut back. b ten n11 ..e .r _ce .nzu 

w. 

3 .3.1.1 

How to safely dispose of the nation's growing high-level nuclear 

2.2 . 1 

waste is one Of the most difficult issues we face today. If we look '^can^ ...-3t m^ -am mcca .a nx m, rats - - 

at it rationally, than we can reach a feasible solution. But it is 

t 

critical that the facts about the Hanford site take precedence over 

—t., 

- 

political expediency 

b` t t air.n aorcaav 

=_ v neo .. rat 

a r a m ce 

c44v 

3.2 . 4. 1 

J 

a- s'.E- w St. 

va^^c oraver. Wore5^6e64 -

£ 4 5 

Yi l:I 

T g pD43 

MQ'p ^TT 

EC 

oc 

JUL 141986^0z 

R 

^ Sp NA^pNFpEHH IN^R 

ATP H O . D NE'$E u^ryV p^ IO rySpEATEMHI M1' ^ WMDNi$ION 

10,198.6 

Ca43 

043 

RECEIVEb DOE-RL 

THE HONORABLE LES AUCOIN 

ace 70 1986 JUL 1 4 1986 ^,CQ3 

WM DIVI$10N 

s 

A 

d 

2.2.1 

2.2.10 

2.2.10 

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY'S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE DISPOSAL 

OF HANFORD 61GH-LEVEL DEFENSE WASTES. 

FORTY YEARS OF DISPOSAL OF WASTES FROM HANFORD ' S DEFENSE. 

OPERATIONS HAVE ALREADY LEFT A BLIGHT ON THE LANDSCAPE OF THE 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST. SO IT IS DOUBLY IMPORTANT THAT AS YOU NOW 

CONSIDER FUTURE DISPOSAL PLANS, THAT YOU FULLY EXAMINE PAST AND 

CURRENT DISPOSAL PRACTICES AT HANFORD THAT WE BELIEVE ARE 

UNACCEPTABLE. 

BECAUSE OF MY CONCERN OVER THE POTENTIALLY DISASTROUS 

CONSEQUENCES OF CONTINUING WITH THE STATUS QUO AT HANFORD, I 

PUSHED FOR SEVERAL AMENDMENTS IN THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 

THIS YEAR. I S M HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE HERE TODAY THAT THE COMMITTEE 

HAS APPROVED MY PLAN WHICH DOES FOUR THINGS! 

"EXPRESSES CONGRESSIONAL CONCERN OVER THE CONTINUED DISPOSAL 

OF MILITARY LIQUID WASTES INTO THE SOIL AT HANFORD) 

`GIVES THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 120 DAYS TO DEVELOP A PLAN 

FOR CEASING THIS PRACTICE AND INSTITUTING ALTERNATIVE 

DISPOSAL METHODS: 

*REQUIRES AN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THESE ALTERNATIVES: 

2 .2 . 10 

*REQUIRES A SCHEDULE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL 

REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE 

2.4.1.1 

MILITARY .MEETS THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS THAT COMMERCIAL 

FACILITIES MUST MEET. 

I HAVE ALSO BEEN WORKING WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL 

SURVEY TO PURSUE INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF 2.2.13 

MILITARY WASTE DISPOSAL ON WATER QUALITY IN THE COLUMBIA 

RIVER, THEY HAVE NOW AGREED TO UNDERTAKE A SHORT-TERM 

SURVEILLANCE STUDY. OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BELOW THE HANFORD 

RESERVATION DURING THE SUMMER LOW-FLOW PERIODS. ILOOK FORWARD 

TO REVIEWING. THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY AND URGE DOE TO 00 THE 

SAME. ONE THING THAT IS A CONTINUING SOURCE OF CONCERN TO ME 

IS THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AFULL-BLOWN STUDY OF THE 4.1.25 

HYDROLOGY IN THIS AREA JU4T FOUR MILES FROM THE COLUMBIA RIVER. 

ENERGY SECRETARY HERRINGTON PLEDGED LAST SEPTEMBER "THAT THE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WILL BE DEDICATED TO CORRECTING THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL . PROBLEMS WE NOW HAVE AND ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK 

FOR ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE.° 

HE ADDED, AND I CANNOT OVEREMPHASIZE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF 

THIS COMMENTZ O WHAT WAS ACCEPTABLE IN 1945 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN 

1985. 1,

4 

eg° 

I 

043 043 

THE HO 

11 

NOR&E LES AuC01N 

ULY 

AGE TOHREE986 

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT DOE'S METHODS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE IN 

2.2. 1 1986. THE 63 MILLION GALLONS OF MILITARY WASTES WHICH HAVE 

PILED UP AT HANFORD MUST BE DEALT WITHIN A MANNER THAT 

PROTECTS THE LIVES, HEALTH, AND ECONOMIC WELL-BEING OF THE 

PEOPLE OF OUR REGION. 

hFcIVEG COE-RPM 

JUL I A 1986 1141 

WMDIVISION 

Rc^4VEU GOc-RLL 

E H^1ÔRN IPA LES AuC01N ûL1? 

U F I 

PAG 

E OUR 

%NmoNISB)N 

/ IT']; CLEAR THAT THE GRAVITY. OF THIS PROBLEM REQUIRES THE BEST 

AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC. AND TECHNICAL RESOURCES. THE SAFETY AND 

HEALTH OF PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS OF NORTHWEST FAMILIES 

DEMANDS NOTHING LESS.,^WITH A HALF-LIFE OF 24,000 YEAR S, 

PLUTONIUM IS AN ELEMENT THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO RISE FROM ITS 

GRAVE AND HAUNT FUTURE GENERATIONS IN OUR WINDS AND WATERWAYS. 

2. 2 . 1 

Co 

THERE ARE THREE CRITERIA THAT ABSOLUTELY MUST BE MET IN 

2. 2 • 1 ADDRESSING THIS PROBLEM. FIRST, THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE 

PEOPLE AND THE REGION MUST BE THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION IN 

DETERMINING DISPOSAL METHODS AND PROCEDURES. 

SECOND, THE STANDARDS FOR DISPOSING OF MILITARY WASTES SHOULD BE 

-I 

AS STRINGENT AS THE STANDARDS FOR DISPOSING OF CIVILIAN 

2 .2. / 

WASTES. PLUTONIUM IS PLUTONIUM, WHETHER IT IS GENERATED BY A 

2.2 L 

MILITARY REACTOR OR BY A CIVILIAN REACTOR. 

THIRD, YOUR DRAFT EIS RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE USING SOIL AS 

A - MEDIUM FOR DUMPING CONTAMINATED WASTES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THIS 

t O PRACTICE IS NOT ALLOWED AT CIVILIAN FACILITIES, AND AS WE MEET 

1 

HERE TODAY IS BEING PHASED OUT AT THE DEPARTMENT'S SAVANNAH 

RIVER FLNNT IN SOUTH CAROLINA. I CANNOT IMAGINE .A SINGLE 

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT'S INSISTENCE THAT THIS 

MISBEGOTTON PRACTICE CONTINUE AT HANFORD, AND WHY IN PARTICULAR 

YOU SINGLE OUT THE NORTHWEST FOR SUCH SLIPSHOD TREATMENT. SO 

I'M DELIGHTED TO HAVE THE - APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE'S SUPPORT 

FOR STOPPING THIS PRACTICE. `. 

IF THE LESSON OF SELECTING A REPOSITORY SITE FOR DISPOSAL OF 

CIVILIAN NUCLEAR WASTES IS NOW TO BE APPLIED TO THE 

DEPARTMENT'S UECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR DISPOSAL OF 111LlTARY 

WASTES. THEN THE MERIT-BASED CRITERION.!SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. 

i- _ 

AND THAT IMMEASURABLE ELEMENT OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE, WILL BE 

- SORELY MISSING./, 

TOO MANY YEARS OF CARELESS DISPOSAL OF WASTES IN SHALLOW MEDIUM 

HAVE, AND WILL CONTINUE TO RESULT IN CONTAMINATION OF 

— 

2 . 2 . 

G 

GROUNDWATER SCOURCES AND ULTIMATELY THE COLUMBIA RIVER. 

FAILURE TO ADDRESS THIS FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WILL RESULT IN AN 3• Z.Y. 

AA 1 

ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE /IN ADDITION.;OURS IS .A REGION OF 

THE COUNTRY WHERE PEOPLE. HAVE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER FOR YEARS 

TO R EBUI LD OUR ECONOMY AND TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ONE OF THE 

GREATEST WATERWAYS OF THE WORLD%TO INCREASE TRADE AND VITAL 

FISHERIES RESOURCES. AND THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTHWEST CONSIDER 

IT A SLAP IN THE FACE TO SEE THE DEPARTMENT AND THE;FEDERAL 

— R+r. 

1

€ f^ »y § ^ o 

BE 

ME 

à:{ 

HE HONORABLE LES AuC01N 

ULY Ô, 1988 

AGE IVE 

rteÊlVciJ DOE-RL 

ûL 1.a t986 

bmkY 

- WM DIVISION 

6D44 

RECEIVED DO 

E-RL 

3.2.4.1 

GOVERNMENT NOW STUBBORNLY ADHERING TO POLICIES WHICH COULD 

DEVASTATE THE COLUMBIA RIVER FOR YEARS AND YEARS TO COME. 

THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTHWEST DESERVE YOUR BEST ENERGIES AND 

SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS. 

WORKING WITH AND FORTHE -PEOPLE I REPRESENT, I DO . NOT INTEND. TO 

ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO PLAY RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH 

- dUL1 g 1986 

wMOIWSION 

Written testimony to ac ompany hearing presentation 

To the US Department. of Enrgy, e 10 duly 19B6 Bonneville Power 

Administration Auditorium 

THE NATURAL RESOURCES WE'VE BEEN BLESSED WITH: RESOURCES ON 

WHICH OUR LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS DEPEND. 

Or. Leonard Palmer, gesotlet. Prof..., of Geology 

Portland State Uni ... city, Portland, Oregon 97207, (503) 229 3022 

t0 

Portland City Council representative delegate to the Citizens 

Forum to the DOE for Defense Waste Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. (this is net a6 official etas ¢mont of PSW

M 044 

(JI 

C) 

DOE WASTE SITE SELECTION PROCESS 

0644 


JUL 1 4 1986 

WMDIVISION 

FUNDAMENTAL ERROR IN DECISION PROCESS SHOWN BY 

FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE ANISOTROPY OF HANFORD EARTH MATERIALS 

Persistent failure i the ticSSlon e making pran..... of the 

DOE regartll ng nuclear waste is dan .... to o during at least the 

past ten years. The fulurc t 

is the iuntlamental 

properties of earth materi al= evident from accidents 

and 

iii lea sn dispomal per;or at H nfartl and from absence of 

2.3. 1x12 al ter nets l nu clear waste siteaselection investigations. 

2 . 

The DOE has not r ..1.I..d the fundamental ...d to select 

rite sites in earth materials with the most uniform 

la 1 properties di basal and lowest permeability to water flow. Non uniform 

properties of Basalt, and sediments at Hanfortl have been ignored 

and compared to none of the available alternate options. The 

appears to hen an inability, unwillingness or failure at the 

ticn e making level to incorporate into the decision making 

process the geological expertise for cognize the physical 

properties of the v availableearth materials and their 

effects upon the h pr4.romance of the waste tlisposal to the land 

and water quality- 

. CA"L DUMPING AND SPI LL ING OF NUCLEAR WASTE 

The result, as described in appendix V of the Draft Et6 and 

in data presented by the Washington State Nurlear Waste board, 

leaking tanks and contaminated soils and sedimentary ground water 

aquifers at Hanford as fell ... i 

.Oyer 52 million gall... of Solid tank wants 

and over 27 million gallons of liquid 

with ar 474 million curies 

in 141bear 

ain'l. well tanks (about '403 l eaking) and 20 

double all tanks. 

3 million cu. yd. It billion gal.) of 

contaminatetl "over 

Sail 

With over 339,000 curies and 437 pounds of plutonium 

In 36 ditches and ponds; 294 cribs, trench es , french 

drains and 'unplanned releases' and 10 -reverse walla• 

Which were used to pump plutaniuw^9-240, 

straintilm-90 and cesium-1S! into the ground water. 

. Th e 216-Z-9 trench raguired treatment due to concern 

about 'criticality"! p. V 17-19 

EXISTING DEFENSE WASTE EXCEEDS COMMERCIAL WASTE VOLUME 

Over 622 of all high-level del .... ... te in the 

country is dumped at Hanford In the above conditions. 

Hanford 'dafen... ...is in tank. would fill about 4 

repositories (at 70,000 yards each, with . co meralal 

waste storage) not including contaminated sail and 

water malert al a. 

0644 


JUL 1 4 1986 

WM DIVISION 

Existing --defense-- -sate at Hanford overehadoes the 

need for a commercial repository because of the 

w 2.3.1.3 

great volume and fluid ch....car of the waste lcomparetle 

• to the commercial lo- volume metal-clad solid waste.) e 

The g i g' material unli., Hanford 1. Cat b" k 

Basalt 11 -- d b and flood corike.ts. The 

of 

highly variable water flow properties 2.1.1 

the basal_ and ...client 

make it n n-h....one... and u uitable for a tll sposal or 

repositor y ssite. 

Just me flow of water through swiss Cheese would be 

difficult to predict, a- the Columbia 111.1 Basalt and 

the Overlying river channel sediments have many 

Channels and v cations in their structure and flow 

properties. Rock units with the properties a 

diaper are more appropriate to waste disposal. with 

the ability toprovic. absorption no containment- 

Many preferable geological snits .1 at with homogeneous 

rocks properties, law grountl water flow rates and law value for 

farming or other lantl. use Granite, shale, volcanic tuff and 

salt p a ys been r cognizetl candidate matials, er ..salt zed 

stream sediment, o e cent at Hanfortl, have not been proposed as a 

Suitable rock material for hunt... waste disposal. Why, 

therefore, is the DOE_ continuin g to propose Hanford as a 

disposal Flt.? 

3.3.1.1 

The DEIS proposed disposal of tank waste in repository 

appears to be impassible due to the vo3 ume of tlefense wastes. 

The it ern at¢ n place" tlisposal, by c co the tanks 

contaminated and 

soils with 5 feet of fine Sail SO the only barrier 

to water infiltration, Is unlikel y to stay in place as 

functional barrier due to into and range ftres on the site and 3.5.1.100 

probable climate change. The c.mparaii ve costs pr .... too in the 

DEIS or. only for immediate transport and disposal casts "in no 

3.2.6.7 

consideration of long term risks or land use 1055¢5. No 

ustification or alternate Options are given, for assuming 

°tle dices ti on" of • the Han Portl ell. far r aft time. 

23.2 .S t. 

Because of theseriousness of the existing "defense" waste 

problems at Hartford and the certainly of a level or 

radioactive and chemical contamination of the water supply of 

the Columbia River valley (If• 

the law of gravity persists), the 3.3.2. 1 

People of Oregon can not support the proposed 5 fact fine-soil 

reap. It 15 too much to impose the m.,.rity of all nuclear 

rite in the country lot. the fresh water aquifers Of the 

worth west without clean up. Almost any state .4 the art 

hazardous waste tlisposal requirements would far exceed the plans 

presented in this DEIS for these most serious of M1azartlous risk 

materials. 

'

0 4 

044 4 

CJl 

1-^ 

3 

of." 

tcE'-iVED DO&RL 

JUL 14 IM 

VIM DIVISION 

The failure to recognize the availability of preferable 

alternate dimp ... I sites antl the hi story of repeated failures at 

the Hanford mite tl orate failing In Judgment of the DOE 

2.5.5 

waste management process. O } glcai and engineering experti se 

exist within the DOE to preside much Input, at has not baen 

tlemonstrated. 

R comparable a ample of management 1 uniti to an 

essential technical input was evident in the recent 

space. shuttle di ... is , w ban eggineeri ng w logs 

rag ard,., the function of booster rocket seals were 

A groat need for revision in the nuclear waste management 

s of DDE with appropri.t. external indepenen d t reew vi by 

2.2.13 prod state, fad ... I and private agencies Is quite .obvious. 

OUES11ON5 FOR DOE 

W41 

hcÊIVED DOE-RL 

JUL 14 IM 

WM DIVISION 

A. Whvalternate sit. eel Bets.o at.A,.b dean t. find 

wbetA., suitable sites a ,at with lower water contaminatio n 2.31 . . 2 

pot ant "1 ai 

2. Why should present and future waste continue to be stored at 2. 1 . 1 

the Hanford it spite of the history failure of the site to 

prevent radioactive and chemical sail and water a b t ration] 

3. Why were the "Lafirande-Chewaukin" fault structures which 

trave ers the Hanf.,d site not shown on the St—t... Mep• Figure 3.2.2. 6 

4.59 41hy a n't the thrust faults on the Hanford site shown an 

the DEIS fault map? 

4. What will prevent direct radioactive and chemical 

contamination of the Columbia River aquifers and water system if' 3 . 5 . 1 .90 

the S foot ( 1.5 meter) 'fine oil'- of the a .site disposal Al b 1n 9 

were to be eroded and removed by wind, water, or other process? 

5. What BACKUP PROTECTION is provided for on site disposal 

3.5.1.90 

plans if the "fine sail" barrier should be removed? 

6. What is to prevent then spilled radioactive and 

Chemical tank an trench ...to free entering the ground water by 

gravitate anal downward movement? What other direction could they 

go? 

3.5.3 .9 

]. Whot .I. 

the 

chemical content of the contaminants a acieted 

3.1.6.1 

with the red a oacti see wait® and what are the potential ri sks to 

organisms if they leak to the environment? 

a. Why ware the more typical designs far waste disposal which 

utilize water "containment and control of potential leachate 33.5 . .2 

drainage not evaluated? 

9. What independent state, federal or private agencies are p . q T 

providing technical r of the DEIS proposal? Could copies of 2 J•2.9 

the. evaluation. be provided? 

lo. what intermediate alternate solutions can be presentee? 

These alternatives presented area extreme high cost swe tow cost 

possibilities with n of thetype of solutions normal for 

1axartlous waste disposal site selection. 

3.3.5. 2

. 

044 M 

LI'I 

N 

ab4q 

Dr. Leon ard Palmer. Auo.let. Professor of Etiology 

Portland State University. Portland. Oregon 9 7207. ( 503) 229 302? 

REVIEW. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENEROY 

DOE/EIS- 0113 VOLUMES 1 - 3 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

DISPOSAL OF HANFORD DEFENSE HIGH-LEVEL, TRANSURANIC AND TANK 

WASTES 

HANFORD SITE. RICHLAN), WASHINGTON 

KARCH 19E6 

Major Issues Identiffedl 1./ Not an SIB 

2./ Error. and omi ssions in DEIS 

3./ V.I. and Cost bet differentiated 

aafaas1 aaa1111anfaaflNeiiaf ff111HIfa^1f if afaMflf tie tifa 

1. 

MIS Appear. to have MISSING MR.TOR ELEMENTS sM1en [ow,ar" to the 

list of topics REWIRED BY THE EPA WIDELINES. A par tial list of 

.o.. of the major poi olons mr. as 4.12.... 

(number o refer to paragraph. in the EPA 9.Id.1t..) 

1. 1.4. Should be 'not aarely justifications for proposed 

funding or action, rather they . • to be detailed presentations 

2.3.1.22 

the ..vlronm..t.l impact . in light of environmental 

censfder.tion..- 

IOEIS tlh... conditions and plans -umea no other 

options are avai Fable, no other use for site. see 3.4.1.6 0.3.40) 

Its 11.3. requires.. deecrfptfon . ... total mifectmd 

h. est t it may b..• 

2.3.1.2 ores (DEIS 1 k s only Hanford site, not the total 

aquifer or drainage system.l 

lc 11.6. "Point (3) requires the responsibl iv . agency to study, 

developand dea[rlbe appropriate alternatives to the recmmmenifed 

2 .3.1.2 case... of action .• in order net to f.reel.ee 

prematurely options which might have 1 detrimental effects.• 

tOEIS shows no alternate site consideration - 

NO COMPARISON OF ALTERNATE sit. 

• comparison of site us. 

far waste 

for farming, etc. 

• n-plac. disposal option. 

off-si to disposal options 


clean up of existing 

f (plutonium, strountlum-90 

JUL 14 IM 

etc.) .Pill. option. 

WNI DIVISION 

6W 


JUL 1 4 1986 

WK DIVISION 

ld 1 L " Point (4) requires and a tint of the . 

short-term and maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

nvironmental pr.ductIyit,.- 

Did not identity the main, environmental VeLUE9: 

valueo4 defense matertai 

(need f.. a bombs-?,.;,, 

va lue of Ovate, system 

o F iver! 

value 

2.5.6 

far 

the{ n and { 

negative value of , _entami meta on 

9e. 11.10. 'Point (5) requires description of any irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of ... 

IDE1S has not ...r essetl thls s i .... I 

2.3.1.2 

Apparent Yin presented 

`f ~** tee ***µ*a» 

2. In addition to the major omissions. the DEIS contains 

flaws in contained data. 

Presentation It contain errare emission. in 

.4 - ential g.ol pgical fault data. The DEIS also 

fails to c .... re the p,.p.." action to es tablished procedures •1 1 

2 4 

(EPA and State r.dioactive and text. ..at. Procedures and e e 1e 1 

guld.lines ).Also. .assumptions of climate stability and non 

migration of contaminants appearto be unproven__ - 

2. It appears that the a tsting practices at Hanford anti 

the proposed procedures fall far .short of meeting the present 2 .2 1 

criteria used for disposal of .far . less hazartlous waste. 

2b DEIS page 4.11. Figure 4.5. General iz etl Geologic 

Structure Map of the Central Plateau (DOE 19.41 

Map lists."Fault" on the legend but has omitt.. all 

..,,ad and known fault the Hanfor d d and most others as 

shown -on the WPP35 (Wa h'.g[ Publ' Power Supply System, °SAR. 

Ftgure 2.5 3, Regional T t .i. Ele t Map) 

4.2 L . 1/1 V 

Figures in the DEIS .1. roppetl toh sow only the top 

of the ground water aquifer, thus exaggerating the apparent 

distance from the contaminant plume to the water. This is not 

maucurate but may be mt sl eading. 

2. Il loatrati nne us cuntamtnatfon .1.... ilea I.,.. V.12 

- V.14, Figure V.7. place •' disposal imply V.B. that V.21. no contamination S Figure 9) and has the aor proposed 'in 

will .. 

the limits of exceeded r. 

the pu l ••cba°aotarieed". 

Figure 8 clearly shows ml gr ati on of the plume and the isolated nature of the 

315.2.44 

.rose r sidul a cloud shaped contamination 

between 1956 1966. • The migration of the radioactive 

material apple s to have been by gravity flow as well s by 

"failed well —g`. The ontamination appears to concentrate 

to fine grained silty layers.

ss. 

M 

0044 

J. 

RECEIVED DQE-RL 

JUL 14 10 

WM DIVISION 

.2!Vcti MERL 

auL 1 4 1386 

WM DIVISION 

3d Thechances i i distribution of onosmanants sho po I/ 

CF at the contami next. be migrated. 2/ that contamination has 

passed a w 

heren 

ontamnation a I. f ound iil 

n the soil 

(betwe ,,the p ]t t d if t . and3/that 

3.5.2.44 ont amenatio mov have extended to the ground water an. been 

vetl before retortion. It is . also paible ss that, i/ the 

,'char act erizatlon" data has c sid...his 3 

In either r 

ontamination s not abe proven to be 

contained by the "in place" design of Figure n9. 

35.6 . . 

3e Climate stability prdvidino continuation of present 

rid conditions,.r essential requirements for the Proposed 

-place" design (with no events oreater than double present 

rage r i.4.11). On a Iong term basis this is not likely nor 

er ifiable. Past climatic fluctuations a shown by palynological 

and marine st,.ti,r.phir data indicate major fluctuations Io the 

past (Holocene time). 

3c Risk tc. the water sùp ply of Cre non s m ,ibisw 

ater table.. at Boardman and potential for nf'lt t' nfr om the 

ncludino Portland has not been oval noted. The extremely low 

Columbia Raver M1as not been add ... b.d. In the event of Bull Run 

water prcblems Portlantlhas the option of using the newly 

developed Portland welt field a a back upsupply, yet the 

drawdown of aquifers in Portland Could result in depressed water. 

tables like those at Boardman. .Infiltration of Columbia River. 

water into the Portland well field aquifers is real possibility 

under that easily passible .condition. 

3.5.2.44 

y'l 

W 

Environmental Values and Coate are net differentiated 

The eaJor. problems with the MIS are the failure to 

.cognize the ..Jor anvironmemtal values, and the uncontested and 

2.3.1.2 untes ad easumption of continuation of the amistinq precedent for 

nuclear processing and disposal use of the Hanford site without 

site suitability comparative analyeb. 

3 .2.6.2 

p 

3. "Value" and " oat" are not differentiated nor 

valuated. Water has value but 

me cost 

(only the cast of 

delivery). The value of the Columbia River and the adjacent 

sedimentary basins to the livelihood of the region are very o eat 

but are not atltlressed. The value and cost of less of purity , of 

the Columbia River is not addressed. 

In this BEIS, cost is calculated in the short term as 

3.2.6. 8 

dollar. and risk to live% in the disposal process. 

No comparison is made of the potential long term 

productivity of the water and ..it of the .,.a, for a ample, a 

an agricultural site (and the number of lives which could be 

supported in the area) compared to the long term productivity and 

r}sk ds a hazardous and nuclear waste site. 

31, Comparison of the long term cultural value of the 

special soil and drainage conditions in the Pasco Basin Manford) 

to the areas less suitable for agriculture is not evaluated. 

3.2.6.2 

Eco nomicgeographyanalysee r 

should provide greater recognition of 

the comparison to other geological sites most probably much 

better suited for waste disposal and much less suitable for 

agriculture and productive land use.

"`V 

OEM 045 

-2- JUL 1 g 1986 

PRESENTATION TO DEPARlTFNi OP ENERGY ^ j CFlG,fr.Î.^ - V:n,orr:S!oN (145 

[[4S SUPPLY. OUR CUSTOMERS HAVE INVESTED OVER $30 MILLION IN THE 

( 

.PUBLIC HEARING ON-HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE'DISPOSAL DRAFT EIS '501/ DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PRECIOUS GROUNDWATER. RESOURCE. 

JULY 10, 1986 

JUL 1S 1986 

17x°Upii3i0N- 

WITH THE RECENT COMPLETION OF MAJOR PORTIONS OF OUR GROUNDWATER 

PROJECT, THE COMBINATION OF THE BULL RUN WATERSHED AND 

GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES NOW PROVIDE ACAPACITY OF APPROXIMATELY 

325 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY. HOWEVER, BASED ON REGIONAL 

3.2.4,1 

I AM ED TENNY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PORTLAND BUREAU OF WATER 

WORKS, WE ARE THE LARGEST PURVEYOR OF DRINKING WATER IN THE 

STATE OF OREGON, SERVING APPROXIMATELY 700,000 CUSTOMERS--ABOUT 

ONE-THIRD OF OREGON'S POPULATION, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT 

ANY PROPOSAL FOR LONG-TERM NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL AT HANFORD 

DUE TO THE POTENTIAL THREAT TO THE REGION'S WATER RESOURCES. 

HISTORICALLY, THE PORTLAND WATER SUPPLY CONSISTED OF THE BULL 

POPULATION PROJECTIONS INTO THE NEXT CENTURY, IT APPEARS LIKELY 

THAT, BY THE YEAR 2050, WATER DEMANDS FOR OUR AREA MAY BE AS 

HIGH AS 500 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. IT IS ONLY PRUDENT THAT 

THE BASIC PHILOSPHY OF MULTIPLICITY OF SOURCES BE CONTINUED 

IN THE FUTURE AS GROWING WATER DEMANDS NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL 

SUPPLY. CERTAINLY, THE COLUMBIA RIVER IS A LIKELY SOURCE TO 

MEET THESE FUTURE WATER NEEDS. 

RUN WATERSHED IN THE CASCADE MOUNTAINS. IN THE EARLY 1970s, 

THE WATER BUREAU EVALUATED SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES FOR INCREASING 

THE CAPACITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM, IN 

ORDER TO MEET GROWING FUTURE NEEDS AND TO PROVIDE A SUPPLY 

TO BACK UP OUR SURFACE WATERSHED SOURCE. AT THAT TIME, THE 

ADDITION OF GROUNDWATER FROM WELLFIELDS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH 

SHORE OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER WAS FOUND TO BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE 

APPROACH. THIS OPTION PROVIDED NOT ONLY A SAFE, AMPLE, RELIABLE, 

AND COST-EFFECTIVE WATER SUPPLY BUT ALSO PROVIDED A SECONDARY 

SUPPLY WHICH WAS TOTALLY INDEPENDENT OF THE EXISTING BULL RUN 

ALTHOUGH. WATER DEMANDS . BEYOND THE YEAR 2050 HAVE NOT BEEN 

PROJECTED, IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT TREATED COLUMBIA 

RIVER WATER WILL BE A NEEDED SOURCE OF DOM'_STIC DRINKING WATER 

WITHIN THE ACTIVE LIFETIME OF THE WASTES TO BE STORED AT HANFORD. 

CONTAMINATION OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BY DEFENSE WASTES LEAKING 

FROM HANFORD's UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS WOULD, AT BEST, 

FORECLOSE THE OPTION OF USING THE COLUMBIA RIVER AS A POTENTIAL 

FUTURE SUPPLY. BUT COULD ALSO THREATEN THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY 

OF THE EXISTING GROUNDWATER SUPPLY BECAUSE OF POSSIBLE INFLUENCES 

FROM THE COLUMBIA RIVER. 

3.2.4.1

am 

UK 

UT 

2.3.2.9 

2.2.7 

2.1.1 

REGLIVEL. DOC>:« 

3 JUL 14 TH;S 

IN LIGHT OF THE SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL THREAT THAT NUCLEAR WASTE 

DISPOSAL POSES TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND PARTICULARLY TO THE WATER 

RESOURCES. DOWNSTREAM OF THE HANFORD SITE, IT SEEMS ONLY 

REASONABLE THAT DOE FUND AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO AREAS THAT MAY BE IMPACTED 

BY THE FACILITY WITHIN THE FUTURE LIFE OF THE WASTES. EXISTING 

WATER WORKS FACILITIES AND FUTURE. WATER NEEDS OF THE PORTLAND 

METROPOLITAN AREA MUST BE MADE A PART OF SUCH RESEARCH. YOU 

CAN BE ASSURED OF OUR FULL COOPERATION IN SUCH A PROJECT, SINCE 

WE ARE ANXIOUS TO BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN YOUR ONGOING 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY PROCESS.' 

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BRIEFLY COMMENT THAT WHATEVER METHOD OF 

DISPOSAL IS SELECTED, BE IT AT HANFORD OR ANY OTHER LOCATION, 

THE DISPOSAL FACILITY MUST CERTAINLY ADHERE TO CIVILIAN STANDARDS 

FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL. IT IS DISTRESSING TO KNOW THAT 

PAST WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES AT HANFORD HAVE RESULTED IN 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION THAT SIMPLY WOULD. NOT BE TOLERATED 

BY PRIVATE INDUSTRY. IN ADDITION, ALTHOUGH I WILL NOT CLAIM 

TO BE AN EXPERT ON GEOLOGY OR HAZARDOUS WASTE 01SPOSAL, IT 

APPEARS TO BE VERY UNWISE TO ATTEMPT TO STORE THESE WASTES 

IN THE POROUS AND COMPLEX GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS OF THE HANFORD 

AREA. GIVEN THE LIQUID NATURE OF THE WASTES IN QUESTION, THEIR 

EXTREMELY LONG ACTIVE LIVES, AND THE PROPENSITY OF LIQUIDS 

TO FLOW DOWNHILL, IT WOULD NOT BE SURPRISING TO FIND THAT AT 

SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE, THESE MATERIALS ARE ESCAPING FROM 

eECEiv^c. _^^..^ 

JUL 1e ESS 

WA' R::'lai'J:: 

THE HANFORD SITE, IT SEEMS THAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES{ SUCH AS 

A SITE WITH LESS POROUS AND MORE PREDICTABLE GEOLOGY OR 

SOLIDIFICATION OF THE WASTE, COULD OFFER A FAR GREATER DEGREE 

'2< 1.1 

OF LONG-TERM CONTAINMENT AND STABILITY. THUS, WE ENCOURAGE 

YOU TO CONSIDER A WIDER RANGE OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS THAN HAS 3.3.5.2 

BEEN CONSIDERED TO DATE. 

IN SUMMARY, THE PORTLAND WATER BUREAU IS STRONGLY COMMITTED 

TO PRESERVATION OF THE REGION'S VARIED AND COMPLEX WATER 

RESOURCES, THE COLUMBIA RIVER SYSTEM IS THE HEART OF OUR 

REGION'S WATER RESOURCE. THE DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES AT 

HANFORD APPEARS TO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PERMANENTLY 

THE REGION'S MOST VALUABLE WATER RESOURCES. NUCLEAR 

CONTAMINATION OF THE COLUMBIA RIVCR WOULD NOT ONLY LIMIT 

AVAILABLE OPTIONS FOR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY SOURCES FOR THE y 

3.2.4.1 

PORTLAND AREA, BUT MAY ALSO THREATEN THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY 

OF EXISTING WATER SUPPLIES WHICH ARE INFLUENCED BY THE RIVER. 

WE WOULD BE .ESPECIALLY PLEASED TO WORK IN COOPERATION WITH 

DOE TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC 

IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES DOWNSTREAM OF THE HANFORD SITE. 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY. 

mo 

PORTLAND. OREGON 

..y •axu 

Edward Tw, 

bnum'wx 

1! 

IIA SN'. YIi AVm.e qmT, 

py U V p geyn 9]dli-1416 ISNI TE ]i@

MON 1 

MM 

I7br Oregon: Neil 

Contact: Virginia Burdick 

RECEIVED- DOE-RL 

July 10, 1986 JUL 14 10 D64^ 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELE"Id DIVISION 

Cregg Kantor 

Ph...: 

2 9aoo 4s2 asa6 

colmchmidc :aid a mini... n.. truant of $40 million for 

design, engineering and preliminary construction of such a 

facility would be a sign of good faith on the part of the US ODE. 

-30-. 

(.T1 

Dl 

NEIL COLDSCHMIOT DEMANDS IMMEDIATE COMMITMENT TO HANFORD CLEANUP 

Oregon gubernatorial candidate Nail G ld hmldt called today 

for a atringenx..ca to rise—, plea at Hanford that would begin in 

1987, not 1994. 

Coldseb.idt's testimony v • delivered by Mildred Schwab, 

Co-chair of the Neil Coldanhvidt for Covernor Multnomah County 

Committee, at a public hearing, held by the United State. 

Department of Energy (US DOE) on its draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS). The DEIS examines various alternatives for 

cleaning up-,military rant&& stored for she past 40 years at 

Bedford. 

2 .2 1 

In his t es timony, Cold&chmidt demanded a cleanup plan that 

.told include a umber of US DOE c ..live.[.. He asked that the 

cleanup plan (1) not add to the waste burden borne by the Columbia 

2. 2. River and surrounding soil for the pant 40 years; (2) comply with 

the same federal standards for private sector waste m nagems 

s •^y and (3) be initiated in 1987 an d net be allowed to 'become lost 

G id the bovelaof the U5 DOE.` 

2. q 

n 

Geld.eh.ldt emitI.I..d the US DOE for being vague nn the mead 

to ....ly with federal environmental-law I. dispel ing of defense 

consider military high-level w any differently in 

terms of risk than commercial high-level was t would be the height 

of c.C9Laf.tenty, • he said. 

2.4 . 1 . 1 ran tea: 'risk 

2 . 2 . 1 

Celdechmidt alas nim.a..d the need for the US DOE x 

Implement a cleanup plan prior to a 1994 date discussed In the 

DEIS. -The time for action 3s now. AS your own (US DOE) 1900 

ant of long-term risks clearly warns: ' . It-may be more 

difficult, dangerous, and costly , to remove the mart& in the future 

than it I. now. 

•TO alleviate amen.... and to eamoatr.te good faith, w , 

amt me n a FSSCal u 

Year 1988 budget request for a pilot Hanford 

3.1.8.0 Near. Vitrification Plant.- a s id. The Vitrification 

p Tons ie n satry to prepare the raato no matter which disposal 

al ternative Is picked. 

- 

REC— G. 

` J I 1&.1986 

l 

- x ,sluti c 46 

Neil Gold.h.id , Am Go,enow Comeduee 

1220 EVE Mmueow, Room US - Portland.. Logan 9 7105' 

2954545(NeH)- Cum& Ponl&nd.1114W5 9a6

sm 

UI 

6641. 

RECENEU pUE-RL 

IUL 14 1986 

WM E)IVISION 


JUL 1? 1986 

I appreciate the opportunity to present my views on th6VUEMISION 

to clean up the existing defense wastes at Hanford. 

Hanford's fate as a permanent nuclear waste dump and the 

final decision on cleaning-up defense wastes will affect 

Oregonians for generations to coma. 

6ra4 

Ln 

V 

TESTIMONY OF 

NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT 

On The 

Cleanup of Military Wastes 

At Hanford 

July 10, 1986 

As you have heard. throughout the day, Oregonians cherish 

action. over Verde. With the completion of the environmental 

impact statement, we expect the Department of Energy 

to kick into high gear to implement a cleanup plan that 2.2.1 

provides the moat effective long-term protection of public 

health, livelihoods, and the environment. 

We Want see work plans, not calls for more research; we 

Want line-item budget. for clean-up facilities, not proposals 

for further studies; we want the production of paper 2 . 20.1 

to stop and the cleanup of waste to begin. For a region 

that has, in the name of national security, borne the risk 

of improperly stored military wastes for forty years, that 

is not too much to ask. 

As a neighbor and a. the agency responsible for the cleanup 

of military waste, the department should understand 

Oregonians' anxiety about the threat to public health, to 3,2.4.1 

livelihood, and to the environment posed by military waste. 

We also expect the department to share our deep commitment 

to the long-term protection of those value.. 

We expect the department's recommended cleanup plan and 

accompanying budget. to be based on what will beet serve 

Portland-VancouVer, not Gramm-Rudman.. If that 1s not the 

case, then Oregonian., other Northwest residents, and their 

elected officials will take steps to ensure that protection 2. 2 , 1 

is based on concern for public health and the envirowient 

not on political expediency. 

G.uus 1

o 

M 

M 


JUL 1 d 1986 

2.2.1 

2.2.7 

In framing a stringent cleanup plan, He seek a commitment 

from the department: 

o To stop adding to the burden already borne by the 

Columbia River and the soil from 40 years of highlevel 

defense waste disposal. 

o To operate a defense waste management plan in 

compliance with the same federal standard. that 

G govern private sector waste management practices. 

o To prevent the defense waste cleanup plan from 

disappearing into the bureaucracy after these 

2.2.9 hearings and to provide a tangible FY88 budget 

commitment to cleanup, not further containment, of 

high-level wastes. 

Specific comments on how the department should meet its 

commitment follow. 


JUL 14 1986 

WM DIVISION 

1. TO STOP ADDING. TO THE BURDEN ALREADY BORNE BY THE WM DIVISION 

COLOMBIA RIVER AND TO THE SOIL FROM 40 YEARS OF BIGH- t041, 

.LEVEL DEFENSE WASTE DISPOSAL 

No "as-is^ snzfece disposal of high-level waste at alndge 3.3.4.1 

should be allowed. ..Toward that end, the department most 

atop using an arbitrary definition of.high-level military 

waste. It fosters . public mistrust when the department 

defines high-level. military waste according to the proaess 

it comes from rather than using EPA's definition based on 

concentrations, or same. other objective criterion, such as 

energy emitted per gram. The Nuclear. Waste Policy Act 

mandate for deep geologic disposal of all conmercial high- 

level waste (HLW) mu at apply equally to defense waste. 

Therefore, the only cleanup vptiam consistent with the 

.intent Of Congress is the cleanup and deep geologic disposal 

of all military high-level wastes and sludges now in nearsurface 

tanks and in trenches. 

To consider military high-level waste any differently in 

2.2.7 

terms Of risk than commercial high-level. waste would be the 22 . . 7 

height of incvnsistancy. Where is the wisdom in spending 

billions of dollars to. build .permanent repository some 

3000 feet underground, while leaving equally hazardous 

military waste in tanks and trenches a .tone's throw from 

the Columbia River. 

L L 

Reliance on grouting (mixing waste with concrete) of highlevel 

wastes followed by disposal in shallow burial pits is 

3.1.8.1 

of questionable long-term protection of public health and 

the environment. The 

oussnSavannah River Plant 

aste management plan final EIS estimates grouting will 

release into the soil 30 times morn plutonium 238, 20 mil-. 

lion times more iodine 129, and 6 million times more technation 

99 than all planned routine discharges from Savannah 

River's two reprocessing facilities. from 1954 to 1976.- 

G.005 2 

G.005 3

4 2 

Ef. 

•. 

B91 

Ln 

W 

3.3.2.2 

3 .3.2.2 

2.4.1.9 

2.4.1.1 

Given the risks from grouting of high-level wastes, It is 

Puzzling why no mention of calcination of high-level wastes 

is mentioned anywhere by the department as a viable cleanup 

option. By converting wastes to Powder,-calcinated wastes 

a e ..11-suited to gI ... ification for deep geologic burial. 

It also eliminates the need for grouting of ...too. 

True, calcination is a better investment as a front-end 

production change; I..., to eliminate the future production 

of liquid waeten Nat now and up t.red I. tanks and 

trenches. But its Potential application to existing inplace 

waste has been totally neglected in the DEIS. Such a 

unique and proven disposal alternative deserves serious 

examination- 

2. TO OPERATE A DEFENSE WASTE MANAGEMENT-PLAN IN COM- 

PLIANCE WITH THE SAME FEDERAL STANDARDS THAT GOVERN 

PRIVATE SECTOR WASTE. MANAGHMENT PRACTICES 

Double standards are indefensible. The nation's cradleto-grave 

hazardous waste protection. law--the Resource.Conservation 

and Recovery Act, or RCRA--applies to federal 

agency waste management and disposal practice.. 

Statements in the DEIS on compliance with federal law are 

vague and conflicting. The DEIS does not address the requirements 

and the intent of federal environmental law. My 

attempt to seek exemptions of defense wastes in matter. of 

environmental safety, measured in geologic time, cannot be 

justified. 


The fact that high-level military waste is indeed a mixture 

of hazardous and radioactive materials means that, under 

RCRA regulations, landfilling or shallow pond disposal is 

prohibited. 

What we first used from the Department of Energy I. a ..hedole 

to bring current waste disposal practices into rem 

pliance with EPA and Washington state health and safety 

standards. Concurrently, the department must fully inventory 

and identify hazards of waste that has been dumped in 

soil over the past 40 years, Knowing what is there, and how 

much, is essential to its proper cleanup. 

The department must commit to a date to Atop routine dumping 

into the soil of low and intermediate toxic and radioactive 

Waste liquids from POREK, the Hanford N-Reactor and the 

high-level waste tank farms. Such disposal practice I. 

outmoded and dangerous. The department. has entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding with South Carolina to stop such 

.oil dumping by 1988. A similier agreement fa sought by 

Washington state. To date, the department has been 

reluctant to negotiate. 

Certainly, the department's. FY87 budget request of $1.6 

million for two more surface disposal ponds is not a sign of 

a commitment to safe and sound disposal of high-level. 

waeten. 

1. TO PREVENT THE DEFENSE WASTE CLEANUP PLAN FROM DIS- 

APPEARING INTO THE BUREAUCRACY AFTER THESE HEARINGS. 

TO PROVIDE A TANGIBLE FYBB BUDGET COMMITMENT TO 

CLEANUP, NOT FURTHER CONTAINMENT. 

2.4.1.9 

2 .4.1.1 

3 .1.1.1 

2.2.10 

2.5.5 

JUL 14 1986 

WM DIVISION 

We want a eastern of good faith from the department . that a 

cleanup plan will be implemented and funded prior to the 


G.005 4 

0.005 5 JUL 14 1986 

WM DIVISION

D y 

M 

C oLf6 

O 

1994 date discussed in the DEIS, and that the deep geologic 

1 

3 .3.1.1 disposal option for high-level waste will be pursued in 

earnest. 

The time for action is now. AsDOE / 9 own 1980 assessment of 

long-sere risk. clearly warns: m if eventual retrieval (from 

tanks) of the waste for permament disposal is undertaken, 

the cost could well rise with the pa..age of years...Tbus, 

O 

2 . 2.1 it may be more diYEieult, dangerous, and costiv to remove 

the waste in the future than it is now." (1) 

3.3.1.2 

The department's FY87 defense nuclear waste construction 

budget request of just under 119 

scarcely 

compares 

with the department's $153 million construction budget 

request at Savannah River. The department'. Hanford menstruction 

budget I. "mainly to demonstrate 1n-place disposal 

of compromised single-shell HLW tanks. m (2) Statements like 

this are another sign that the department's intentions are 

already in place. 

To alleviate our concern. and to demonstrate good faith, we 

- want to ... a FY88 budget request for a pilot Hanford Waste 

p Vitrification Plant (HWVP). Since a vitrification plant is 

an essential component of both the DEIS reference alternap 

3 ( 1 8 . J tive and the DEIS repository :alternative--the department 

would be prudent to begin construction of a pilot facility 

in 1987. The Northwest will not tolerate a 30-yeas struggle 

to fund such a facility as the state of South. Carolina was 

compelled to do. 

A minimum commitment of $40 million for design, engineering, 

and preliminary construction of a vitrification plant would 

provide a necessary sign of good faith by the department. 

3.1.8.9 

The plant'. similiariti.. be the existing Savannah River 

vitrification plant allow for an expedited construction 

schedule. 

6.005 6 


JUL 14 1986 

WMDIV(S(o t4 

664b 

Convetaely, to fund a grouting facility for surface disposal 

rather than a vitrification plant would be a clear indication 

. that the department is wadded to in-place. near-surface 

2.2.1 

disposal. it would offer a clear sign that coat .... iderations 

are placed above the long-term protection of public 

health and the environment in the department'. plane. 

Finally, we . seek a pledge from the department to stick to. 

its commitment to produce a final EIS by mid-1987. We do 

not want to see the department's. doors elan shut after a 2 . 2 . 1 

brief exposure to public scrutiny. The 'momentum for cleanup L 

action and the public expectation for such are-simply too 

great to become lost in the bowels of the DS Department of 

Energy. Porty years is long enough to wait.. 

REFERENCES 


JUL 1 a 19M 

WM DIVISION 604& 

1. Rockwell Sanford Operation., He A..es.ment of the Risks 

As...I.ed With Continued Stoxaa wig ^v.T -Ie H 

in Single-She Tan a at Hanfor , May 980. 

2. U.S. Department of Energy, COn r...'onal Hud et 

Ae nest Atomic Defense A...— ee n vo ..I, pp. 563 

DOL/MA-00 5'rl 4,Fe ruaxy 1386. 


JUL 14 pas 

o46 

WM DIVISION

ME 04°7 

TESTIMONY ON HANFORD N-WASTE y/li/eB 

poy7 


JUL 141986 

BARBARA LA MOHTiCELLA WM DIVISION 

4047 

HAMM N-WASTE TESTIMONY 

BARBARA LA MORTICELLA 

ooY. 

RECEIVEu DOE-RL 

JUL 141986 

July 11, 1984VMDIVISION 

PAGE 2 W47 

Cn 

A few years ago,. Tread in the Oregonian that radioactive 

rabbit droppings and pocket gopher based badbeen found 10 

miles from the Hanford site, and a radioactive eagle's 

.eat 25 miles from the site. Parts of a livin g system 

cannot be isolated from other parts. Although Chernobyl 

is very far away from Portland, rainwater in Portland was 

one of the first places in the U.S. where radiation from 

Chernobyl was measured:, 

It is appropriate that radiation showed up in this region 

first, for the Northwest has already played a . .large role 

in this country's nuclear. development.. 

QJ 

One legacy of that role is the Hanford N-Plant, the 

oldest plant is the country. Like Chernobyl, it is a 

41 

graphite reactor. But while Chernob yl did have a contain- 

'N meat building, Hanford has none, and is built to withstand 

only 1/5 as much pressure as the Chernobyl pia twas. l The 

Ranford design is obsolete and dangerous, butKOORtiuues''tb 

.peratfec- 

M^ 

4 The pur.. plutonium plant is another legacy,.... of 

the major sources of plut.niem for U.S. nuclear bombs. 

Willi am Lawless, a former engineer and waste manager foe 

U.S. Department of Energy, says that the soil of the Danford 

reservation poses the most serious plutonium contmina- 

Lion problem ofany sit e. In the nation. 2 Today the Puiex 

O pi pt routinely dischar ges about 7.5 time. more plutonium 

(:1 than the infamous Rocky Plants plutonium pla.t. 3 The soil 

throughout the Hanford site contains more plutonium per 

C O square acre, 84 mca., than the city of Nagasaki, lees than 

a mile from ground zero, immediately after it was bombed. 

And plutonium levels in the soil in the cities of Richland 

and Sunnyside approach Nagasaki's.4 

A Pew years ago, Russia - stopped releasing the etatistiew 

for life expectancy and infant. mortality, for those 

figures had begun worsening. Last year when Dr. Carl 

Johnson, one of the fathers of .nuclear ..fence, was in Portland, 

I asked him what seams a. wild question-- whether it 

was possible that the drop in Soviet life expectancy could 

be related to the accident at Kyshtym. He replied that yea, 

it was passible. Premature ag ing is one of the little-known 

side effects of radiation exposure that have been revealed 

I. a few studies which were abruptly discontinued, end then 

buried from public view. 10-20 years would be about the 

right amount of time for this side effect to begin to 

surface. 

The U.S.S.R. has no public hearings like this one, no 

lengthy intervention processes of the kinds which the U.S. 

aucle ar industry bemoans. Russia, then, Ys two major public 

disasters ahead of us. But we have our potential Chernobyl, 

at Hanford. We have or potential Kyshtym, at Hanford. 

We also have a free press. A few months a go, the following 

story app..f.d in the Oregonian: 

I. the late 40 1 s; the goverment was trying to devise 

ways to measure radioactive fallout in the Soviet Union 

in order to monitor their nvelse, blasts. Measuring the 

radioactive dust in the holes of Russian bowling balls was 

Put forth was one option. 5,5000 curies of 1-I31, a thousand 

times the contamination released during the Three-Mile 

Island accident, were purposely discharged into the air 

of the Northwest to test U.S. measuring devices. y Presumably 

the plan was for undercover agents to haunt the howling 

alleys in Richland Spokane and Seattle, furtively holding 

geiger counters over .bowling bells. This plan was abandoned 

who p .....a. recollected that the Russians do out bowl, 

0 

O 

0 

3CID 

Q 

fD 

C+ 

D 

d 

There I. another parallel. The U.S.S.R. hoe had not 

one, b'dt two major nuclear accidents: at Chernobyl, and 

One in 1958 at a remote nuclear waste site sad plutonium 

plant „, xvshtmn. in the Orel Mountains. At Kyshtym, as at 

several huudreg thousand square all.. of land permanently 

uninhabitable. And a Russian defector who had been an 

en gi near supervising construction at Kyshtym told Science 

Magazine in '83 that that plant was an exact, pipe-by-pipe 

copy of the acres pinnt.6 Net Pure. goes on, day after 

day, producing weapons-grade plutonium. 

The story would be funny, except that that radiation 

really was released over the Northwest. We don't know 

where the government finally chose to measure it: on cars 

in parking lots, in Playgrounds, on cow's udders or horse 'e 

manes. And we don't knew what the health effects of this 

experiment were sad 'are, bananas . pull-scale, independent 

health study hasnever been funded. 

The story isn't funny, either, because it still goes 

on. More than 40 lbs.. of pure plutonium were scheduled to 

go up in the next rocket launch after Challenger, enough to

04 7 am 

LT 

N 

0047 


JUL 14 

HANFORD N-WASTE TESTIMONY JULY 11, 18%MDFVISION 

tYM 064 

BARBARA LA MORTICBL PAGE 3 

contaminate the entire planst. 8 And today we ar e. here to 

address 'a plan to ship all of the nuclear waste in the 

3.4.2.2 ...try, ou 85% of which is produced east of the Mississippi 

River, by truck and by train across the continent to bring 

- it to Hanford, and to deposit it on the banks of our region`s 

most vital 'waterway; to endanger the river, to endanger 

the people of the Nort4.t ad to ..danger every state in 

the union those tracks ad th se trains P a.. through. ^fFPn 

Tlev

E^g ^ 

d 

F 

k 1 f5 £"3 

U:, 049 

M 

W 

2. 

1 . 1 

00q'6 

17-1-^^ 

r 

OREGON STATE PUBLIC INTERESTRESEARLCHGGROOUUP 

(/^^ 

l0 1 

^ 

(Q dy ®Sp,RV ^y ^yl 

POrt en 222 gEW201 97 

[ ^J 1503) OR 

Statement Of Be'. L. Laumann 

before the 

I'm Rochelle Cashdan, an anthzop p logi.t from Portland. .peaking -to. myvel£. 

United State. Oepartment of Energy 

I'va lived near the Columbia of its tributaries for my 22 year. in the 

Public Hearing - Portland. Oregon 

Northwest. 

hFC-Ivtu DOERL 

July 10, 1986 

The Columbia Rlti I basin one of the eat rites bands. 

WM 14 1986 

6 E49 

OE the world. It M1aa been is one for people for thousands of Fears. - 

WMOIYISION - 

I don't want to see nuclear waste dumped .nywher. near it. 

Good evening. I would like to chunk the U.B. Department 

It'. t's not good £oz people. (^//^J '^^ ,l. /' rf^^ 

CRU^., y 1 t ' D , 

of Energy for the 0poortunity to submit this statement. My name 

Rochelle Caehdan 

3529 S. B. Yamhlll is Sara Laumann. I am the Staff Attorney for the Oregon State 

Portland 92214 

Public Interest Research Group. GRPIRG 1. Oregon's Oldest and 


JUL 14 " 

largest environmental and consumer organisation with over 30,000 

citizen members and over 35,000 student members statewide. 

There are two points I would like to cover thin evening, 

First, there is a lack of opportunity for Oregonians and the 

2.4.1.5 

WM DIVISION state of Oregon to participate in the decision-making process 

involving Hanford; and second, there are various issue. involving 

6mg the transportation of high level radioactive waste. through 

3.4.2.2 

Oregon that have not received adequate consideration. 

OSPIRU DEMANDS THAT OREGON BE GIVEN AFFECTED STATE STATUS 

Since the Hartford Reservation is only 30 miles from the 

Oregon border. there are arguably more im pact. on Oregon than 

Washington. The potential environmental and health effects 

from the radioactivity at Hanford will not respect state borders. 

In the Draft EIS, the DOE states that "Downstream users of the 

Columbia River would incur at most one health effect associated 

3. 2.4. 1 

with the disposal of waste over 10,000.yp.r.." We, citizens. n of J

M1` 

4 s 7 4 a 4 

_ 

043 043 

2.4.1.5 

J . L 2 

0049 


Oregon, are those downstream users. Further, OSPIRG believes 

JUL 1410 

WMDIVISION 660 

the statement made by the DOE inaccurately represents the scope 

of the problem. 

By inviting us to testify today, the DOE has 

demonstrated that Oregonians should have input into the 

decision-making process. Although this is agood first step, 

each more needs to be done. Oregon should be givenaffected 

state status. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. the DOE is 

required to consider the "regional" impacts of locating the 

proposed repository at such a site. Certainly the state of 

Oregon falls within the region. There are and will continue to 

be impacts to Oregon in the way of health, safety, welfare and 

the environment. My decision involving Hanford most consider 

these impact. to Oregon.. Financial resources .should be given to 

2 . 3 8 Oregon to study these impacts: Additionally, more hearings should 

be held througbout the states particularly in those cities along 

the transportation routes to and from Hanford (I-Ha and 1-5) and 

also those cities along the Columbia River: 

9SPIRG DENANDS THAT THE DOE SERIOUSLY CONSIDER 

THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THE TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE 

Currently there are 5 Shipments per day of radioactive 

waste traveling across Oregon highways. If Hanford is Selected 

as the repository, this number will increase to 17 shipments per 

day or over 6,000 shipments a year. Additionally, if the defense w 

REu°IVCJ DOE-RL 

JUL 14 1986 

WMDIVISION 

currently stored at Hanford is shipped to another site, the 

number of shipments traveling along Oregon's highways will again, 

dramatically increase. 

In the Draft DIE, the DOE has presented numbers, 

intricate computer models, complicated equations and 

sophisticated language, this all boiling down to the fact that 

shipments will be transported to or from Hanford through Oregon. 

It will only be a matter of time before a major accident occurs. 

The DOE states in the Draft EIS that there have only been 30 

qp 

3.4. 2.22 

accidents per year which have involved radioactive materials. 

3.4.2.2- 

Although this may be true, this does not take into consideration 

that there will be significantly more shipments on our highways 

an the future. Additionally, even though 30 accidents may seem 

like a low number 

...it takes only one accident to cause devastating damage. Just 

look at what happened with just "one accident in the Soviet 

Onion. 

In the Draft EIE, the DOE lays Out the method to be 

used to teat containers in which the radioactive waste will be 

Shipped. The report states that "These test environments are 

designed to simulate very Severe transport accidents." The report 

goes on to say that the conditions are equivalent to or more 

severe than actual conditions to be encountered. In the drop 

test, a container is dropped from 29 feet. Certainlyd there are 

P ortions . of the highways in which a container could fall more 

3.4.2.22 

3.4.3.8 

3.4.2.12 

-2_

c 

049 049 

0Cn 

0040 


JU^L 

141906 

conY 

1510 

a 30 

^11 1 

.tfian 29 feet. The thermal test - testa the tN^Ytta 

minute fire at 800 degreea Celsius. This is inadequate because 

certain fuels used in transportation burn at over 1000 degrees 

Celsius. In the water-immersion teat, the container is in water 

for only 8 hour , . One can imagine circumstances in which a 

3.4.2. 12 contains, filled with radioactive waste remains in the water for 

more than 8 hours. The testa on the containers are inadequate 

and do not truly reflect the very se 

are transportation accidents 

that they are designed to simulate. The containers will not 

protect the safety and welfare of citizens nor the environment. 

It is essential that those responding to an accident 

involving radioactive waste be prepared for the worst case 

3 .4.2.24 scenario. OSPIRG urges the DOE to allocate financial resources 

3 .4.2.2 

to provide for adequate response along the potential 

transportation routes. In the Draft EIS, the DOE acknowledges 

that the ultimate responsibility for emergency response planning 

lies_ with the state and local governments. OSPIRG agrees that 

this is where the planning should occur. However, most of Oregon's 

'first responders' do not have the necessary equipment, training, 

and planning to adequately respond in the event of an incident. 

In conclusion, the DOE proposes to increase radioactive 

waste shipments through Oregon. Some of those shipments will be 

traveling only a short distance from this auditorium. Thin 

increase will endanger our health, our safety, and our 

- environment. 'Until Oregon gains affected state status and until 

RECEIVED MERL 

4UL 141986 

WM DIVISION 

the DOE adequately considers all of the impacts from 

transporting these radioactive wastes, reasoned decision making 

3.4.2.2 

can not owur. 

_q_ 

-5_

050 1 

En 

3 . LaY /i e 1 

_ July 10,1986 

In t to Draft E.I.S. Coves.1aQ Han£oad as candidate site for xedioactive caste 

c[orage. 

To save time, I'm got" to talk about only one gripe, People Fawn'[ 

been told vho will be endaagemd sh ou ld theta be leaks at Handouts. The 

Dtafa E.I.S. does say, quote -These is no oitbdcawl of grwwdwetes from 

beneath the Hanford St. for purpoees of supplying any. community .vatex systems^. 

(p.4.21) 

Goodie. People liviyr ..by evidently a ch cautious. gut, if then 4exe 

a leak, and if radioactivity Net into water, mtl if th e outer mo un d - 

who would be eadangetedl 

This is a vital question. Me People who would be endaoge cad are, at 

Fewness population counts, about 100,000 people living in the Portland 

met[o area, whose current votes sou include deep walla close to the 

Students Ri ve s, dowetrtam from Hanford. Costainly tadioactivity Settled 

into no Columbia could at into [beta we lls. He don't kvov -he' the 

3.2.3.6 

aquifers Exact, Haufnrd a., . but there's m season to doubt that they might 

.2.4.1. 5 

connect with Portland's wall.. 

.She m n Poxclandexe and Gradual. at hide should know thin. i 

that Men they would insist on Sieges hewing a veto poxes. like Nanlu,wthe State 

has, should Haeford be selected as the xepocitory site. 

But, they haven't bee. told. Cong re ss is letting only waebiogton haun 

a. ve to po we r, although may mom people who pave a direct cacnsere as fax 

eve these drinking waste is concermad, live is omgon. 

In [his climate of lack of public tslourecinn about Pmtlavd's wale 

aovrces, and unheard they am subject [o, it is not eu['peisiuN that Rep[e- 

..en[atsve Reawr how been I. 00' mowledge), acs¢ wly Comarem eve wM hoe 

..shed for Dowles havins were power equal he that of weshingtna. 

Respectfully n.mlicad, e tx.:-Q ),, , Rf.0 

RECEIVE!). DOE-RL Joseph L. Mi11et Jx.,M.a., (metima) 

JUL 1 4 10 52815 E. Marmot on.,. sandy; Ot.. 91055 

'NM13pli91o hl 00" 

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Public Hearing - July 10, 1986 ÊCEIVEu DOE-RL 

BPA Auditorium, Portland, Oregp 

AL 1 4 1986 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA MORGAN 

615 2nd Street WM DIVISION 

Oregon City, OR 91045 

My name is .Patricia Morgan; I reside in Oregon City, but I live forever 

on Planat Earth. I would like to express. to you map emotions, but I knew that 

hearings personnel do not make decisions on actions. They make decisions on 

facts - and I will give you a few fagts, though I will admit from the start 

that I am not a learned scientist on nuclear issues. But first I must express 

my emotions:. 

MY first caution is that I'm sca re d. My reaction is to run, but there 

is nowhere to run t0. 1 sailed for seven years in the South Pacific, and I want 

to run back to that fast fading paradise, but there is no running if a repository 

is sited on the great Columbia Matawade, 

I an frustrated and feeling totally helpless in the power of the government 

and greedy corporations to decide the future of my children and this earth.I 

have not been lulled to sleep by the lies of the safety and necessity of nuclear 

anus and nuclear energy; thankfully, I am still a thinking and feeling human 

being. 

I believe we have become a frivolous society -- frivolous in the use of 

our resources and forgetful in our reverence fm the earth on which we live. 

I feel deeply that with reverence there emerges a conservation of resources that 

are Earth's continuing gift to its living creatures. For same unfathomable reason 

the poor white man is blinded by an ignorance that drives him to believe 

that he can conquer nature, that he does not need to live in hammy with the 

Earth. But when the plants are dead, the rains are acid, the ozone layer is 

gone and we are all dying of radiation. sickness, there will no longer be time 

to change. 

My biggest fear, and sadly it is held by every other mother I have talked 

to, and sadly I don't believe it is an unfounded fear, is the fear of whether 

1 will have the strength to slit my children's throat, my three children's throat, 

at the time of the nuclear holocaust due to a meltdown of the N-Reactor when 

3.4.3.1 

a major repository at Hanford shakes and trembles f ro m volcanic(earthquake ' acti-

J M 051 

V 

2.5.6 

page 2 

Morgan 

July 10, 1986 


JUL 14 1986 

WM DIVISION 

vity, releasing massive doses of high-level radiation into the surrounding environwant 

and into the Columbia River and the exposure is a two-week slow death wary 

rant. Can I look into my children's eyes and tell them it is the cost loving 

thing I. can do for them is to end there life today rather than put them through 

the torture of irradiated death? 

So those are my emotions. I would like to add that my second son who 

was conceived in Micronesia, close enough to Eniwetok, was barn bilaterally clubfeet, 

his feet twisted into half balls and pointing backwards, upside down. 

I was lucky: Ile only required 10 months of continuous casting, one major surgery. 

and four gonths. of polio-type braces. He is still very pigeon-toed; his musculature 

in his lower calf will never develop. As a mother it was a very torturous 

experience, very heart-breaking.. Was he deformed because of all the irradiated 

fish I ate living in Micronesia? I've often. wondered, .Birth defects is only 

one effect from radiation poisoning. 

We have borrowed the earth from our children; they will borrow it from 

their children. 

Facts. We have 43 years of accumulated nuclear waste and you and I don't 

know what to do with it. And it's not going away, is it? Facts: The people 

who created were not thinking much beyond their pocket books when they created 

it, so much so that they even have an insurance disclaimer stating the y will 

not be responsible for any kind of nuclear disaster. Facts: The government 

and greedy utilities are continuing to building nuclear power houses and create 

nuclear waste. Facts: They have no place to put it safely:. 

Sadly, I'm not a scientist; I'm Just a. sensible person trying to living 

In harmony with my bone. Oftentimes when I meet people with different value 

systems than 1, I walk around them. I let them be. We obviously have different 

value systems and I can't walk around you. I most shout out to you that 

you are wrong: You are morally, economically, spiritually and politically wrong 

to continue to produce nuclear anything. hid that is the beginning of the solutip.. 

1 try to teach my children that it is okay to admit that on are wrong, 

Go 51 

page 3 

July 10. 1986 

!organ 


JUL la 1986 

WM DIVISION 

that it is actually a sign of positive strength to admit you are wrong, to step 

down and try to correct your wrong. That is the beginning to the solution: 

Even Einstein hasadmitted he ..a wrong in ever unleashing such a power upon 

this earth. 

We don't need nuclear energy. Conservation measures have worked so effectively 

in the Northwest -- I don't. know about other parts of the nation -- that 

the power companies are losing money and trying to get rid of conservation mea 

sores -- again for their own greedy reasons. We don't need to kill people. 

I don't know of any women w children or even warmanging men who need to die. 

Wo don't need nuclear allthing, and the beginning to your problem of storage 

of nuclear waste is to stop producing it. Today. Pass a law. The goverment 

passes laws regulating our consciousness', regulating how fast we travel across 

the surface of the earth, regulating where our personal wastes go and these are 

all passed in the nave of providing ultimate safety to members of society. Pass 

a law which bans nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs. Simple. 

In Oregon, we are attempting to pass laws and I think we'll do 

it in November: Three petitions will be an the ballot dealing with the nuclear 

fuel cycle: one that will phase out nuclear weapons manufacture in Oregon by 

1990, one that will prohibit the operation of a nuclear power plant in Oregon, 

and a third dealing with low-level radioactive waste and laws requiring its safe 

containment. Oregon will set a precedent and became the first nuclear-free state 

In the union. You, as the U.S. Government, can pass national laws simply banning 

outlawing. forever ending the Production of high-level nuclear waste. 

So that's the solution. Stop . production of nuclear waste. Or that's part 

of the solution. I am not a learned expert an nuclear waste so I can't speak 

Intelligently .about how to deal with the waste already Produced. i can only Say 

that as with any logical solution to a problem, you most first set out strict 

criteria outlining the absolutely safest method and site. The criteria should 

not include, under any circumstance, political expediency, which seems to be 

an the top of your list right now. Soil is proving to be an inadequate method 

of deposition of our man-made wastes, but if you're insistent in using soil don't 

2.5.6 

2.5.6 

2.2.1

1 7 1 } m 0 1 

M 

00 

2 .1 a l 

Page 

4 

Horgan 

July 10, 1986 

051 

RECEIVED ODE-RL 

JUL 1 4 1966 

WM DIVISION 

â 51 

place your high level radioactive waste in water permeated soil four miles from 

a major river, upstream from a million Or more people. I know that you know 

that Hanford, for that reason alone, is the most dangerous. most ridiculous site 

picked. My continue to wear the Idiot Caps. Take them off as Bob Pollard did 

In 1915 when he quit the NBC, taking the moral initiative to stop being the 

puppets of a crazy goverhment and greedy utilities. 

But if you're going to continue in finding a solution, continue to outline 

specific criteria: The site most NOT be within an earthquake Zone. The site 

lei must NOT be within an area of known volcanic activity. I demand of you, the 

2, 1,1 

DOE, that you came back to us with a list of criteria that we, the people of 

this region, must approve as .logical and safe criteria before you even suggest 

siting a permanent nuclear waste repository in our Northwest area. 

And emotions most enter Into your decisions because emotions are powerful. 

The Boston Tea Party was emotions: People fed up, absolutely fed up with 

.5.5 a government, fed up with taxation without representation. ea are fed up with 

2 

this forked-tongue syndrome, you c om ing to listen to our suggestions and then 

going back East, far away from the problem here, and making decisions about our 

lives without listening to your consciences. change your value systems. Take 

a walk .through Shriners Crippled Children . Hospital and hold the handless arm 

or an armless shoulder of a deformed child; go to a cancer ward and talk to those 

dying of cancer, a disease still increasing at rapid rates in spite of medicine's 

:sweat cures; go to the 93,000 people of the Chernobyl accident, as many 

of them slowly die from their exposures; go to the victims of Hiroshima; and 

if you have children, look hard into your children's eyes and ask haw you can 

end their misery the quickest if they were 25 miles from a disaster of the magnitude 

Hanford could create; and then go dean into your heart, watch a sunset. 

And then list another criteria for a repository: that from this day forward 

mo re nuclear waste shall be produced, we can all change our lifestyles a 

2a 6 6 no 

little and live without wasting so much energy; we can change our values and live 

without desiring to murder women and children. 

You are forcing a time Nomb on the people of the Northwest and we don't 

want it, but then maybe it's time for another chapter in the history book called 

The Hanford Tea Party. 

poSa 


-a- JUL 1A 686 

Tatierny gonna at U.S. Department of Suez" eeerings 

WM DIVISION 

July 10. 190E .. - 

Hi.i Natluro 

1266BE4Tth 

Portland; OR W233 r 

503-333-.6 

Mere . aim t. Pointe I . 4 like to make thin omtng, An a 

teeMOlogy professional. I n ex t to any Net then 

UVIROANERTAL IMPACT STATEMENT doeusant 1e defa2ive. 

toadpuate, alie na ting, e1ltla4 ill-rnwetch ad, - - 

052 

presueptuoua. a nd ludiaoum. I me not fooled by your 

elmplleltc and aaoingly anfldaat anewrs to such quentiona 2.3.2.10 

a• ghat le Tom issu.? - 

ds How ssfe ;e . the eexp 'ant 1t 1911 _ 

a. what leWate own ba . erpectM 1. U. near £.tuts? 

a, what long-teve lapctn. can ". wpchedt 

The ... Tau v..c ex w. mat eatlefectory or praparly 

enalyted. Yen Ww'T know what the awns [tally aka. hw mean 

the wizen[ statage la, or. nest lapw ing can an erpadtM in 

the near or far fntnra. 

2.3.2.1 

ga back to tam drawing board. It in time far U. neperta—t 

of Enex9y to take betel tssponalbillty for making a 

mnptsnt and thorough aussssmt of tea technologies it

z 

052 053 

RECEIVED, DO E-RL 

JUL 14 Ines o sa I Department of Energy 


JUL 1 4 19W 

Will DIVISION 

2 - VIM DIVISION 625 MARION ST. NE, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE37840 0 TOLL FREE 1.906221-0035 

Ol 

to 

as.... uc YaaYVaaa as....an.. .n cagy 

emepn—t suet take account 

sort 

2 • ^' e ducat tonel, c pain, into and equity Segues health for safety, all people. 

By second point is to seems all of us that the Hanford 

nuclear east. leave is related to, apart of, a so a. acted 

3 • n G •V G t to other vital Suues vas are involved with and affected by 

.1 

in Us eastern U.S.. ndeely the prawrvatlan of old growth 

forest&. Specifically the CatA.drel Forest here in Oregon. 

0. are ale. requested to and effected by the inl..tic. bung 

inflicted on the Hopi and the Navq 0 peoples at Big NOuntain 

in Arbon.. 

The Hopl r.,h., vanta ge ust 'If w dig precious things 

iron the Earth, as will invite dleeetee. 

A. we convene is this rocs agencies oor heart. and ]cluing 

our voice. month—, w n A. nareony --- as are ana value. 

our .aloe will be heard. 

Hanford Defense Waste Disposal 

Draft EIS 

Testimony of Lynn 0. Frank, Director 

Oregon Department of Energy 

July 10, 19813 

1 am Lynn Frank. Director of the Oregon Department of Energy, representing 

Oregon Governor . Victor Atlyeh. 

We would like to share the conclusions of Oregon's Technical Review, which will be 

supported by campreheraiv e. technical analysis submi tted later. along with 

comments from citizens. 

For decades, we have lived In the shadow of the unk no wn and unseen perll of 

radioactivity at Hanford 

The willingness of the new management at Hanford to open the books for public 

Inspection Is a welcome change In policy. 

The insights gained have been revealing, distressing and long overdue. 

With anguish, we have learned of past practices which simply would no t be accepted 

today.. 

Today we have the opportunity for our voices to Da heard in responding to the 

challenge of what to do with defense wastes at Hanford. 

For his initiative In Proposing a colutlon. we applaud the Richland Operations 

Manager, Mike Lawrence. For acknowledging Oregon's vital Interests, we thank 

him and you as well. That recognition too is long overtlue. 

There are three principles which most golds us in meeting the challenge. 

First. long term risk to public health and Safety and the environment simply 3.5 .5.33 

can no t be accepted. No action should ever breach that standard 

Second, if the options presented dp not give us the greatest confidence that 

standard can be achieved -- we urge you to pursue more In no vative 

technologies to gain that confidence, and that you no t risk needless radiation 

exposure to the workers. 

Third. wastes which can be Safely retrieved and reliably disposed should be 

acted upon.row. 

3.3.5.3 

3.3..5.3 

The Oreaen D&eanmont of Su gar is ea E.cdl O ppo rtunity, Emolover

053 ER 


V 

O 

3.3.1.1 

-Page Two- JUL 14 1986 

WM DIVISION 

The option that gives us the greatest confidence is disposal at a geologic 

repository. That repository too should be chosen on the basis of the greatest 

confidence in the ability to protect Public health and safety and the 

environment 

2.1.1 

Lest there be any doubt. it Is our clear and abiding conviction That Hanford 

falls that test. 

[ 

3.3.J 3J 

3.3.5.3 

3.3.5.4 

3.3.5,3 

Those principles lead us to these conclusions: 

1. The high-level liquid wastes in the double shell tanks can and should be 

retrieved, glasified, and moved to a future geologic repository. 

Z The high level solidwastes in the single shell tanks should be retrieved 

glaied, sif and moved to a future geologic repository. 

For Nat to be achieved more imwvath i, technologies than those 

considered must be pursued, because of the tremendous cost and needless 

radiation exposure to workers. 

The Imminent threat to the environment was relieved when Hqulds were 

taken from these tanks. That action gives us the time to pursue safe. 

cost-effective technologies to retrieve that waste for disposal in a 

geologic repository. 

We are confidant that we can know if that can be achieved within five 

years. Only if that cannot be achieved, would we urge stabilization in 

place. Even then the wastes should be solidified and more comprehensive 

ergineered barriers adopted. - 

3. 

3.1,3J . LJ 25 

the waste repmi tory being built in New Mexico, 

3.1.3.25 '3 . 4. Plutonium wastes produced before 1970 should be retrieved and disposed 

Plutonlum wastes produced after1970 should be retrieved and disposed at 

at the New Mexico repoiitory. 

However those pre-1970 wastes are dispersed and not as safely 

retrievable nww. We urge you again to complete s more critical analysis 

within five years to avald unreasoned roar and unnecessary radiation 

a'"a to workers. Only If a better retrieval option cannot be 

achieved. should stabilization be pursued. Even than, higher standards 

for protection must be accomplished. 

C 

3.1. G 2 J 

5. 

The strontium and cesium wastes encapsulated for medical and irometrial 

. use should be shipped to a future geologle repository. 

Finally. we recognize that the initiative of U.S. DOE alone will not be enough. 

We support Congressional action to: 

-Page Three- 

RECEIVED COE-RL 

JUL 14 1986 

WM DIVISION 

- Direct that department to comply with federal and state r o ammenR on 2. 3. L 14 

waste handling and disposal for chemical and low-level radioactive 

waste as well_ and, 

- Establish and enforce a descending srtedtle of compliance. 2. 2 . 2 

But, even that will not be enough. Congress must he now what it should have done 

40 years ago: 

2. 2 . 9 

Provide funding to dispose of these and future deferes wastes. 

Congress demands that Oregonians pay-as-we-go to provide funds for waste 

disposal for me commercial nuclear industry. Congress should demand no less of 

itself and the U.S. DOE. 

2.2.9 

Congress should pay now for wastes produced now in its nuclear weapons production 

programs. 

2.2.9 

The cast will be great. But. for 40 years. them wastes have grown as a liability of 

this nation. It Is time that debt be paid 

Thank You

Im 

053 3 


OREGON POSITION 

ON 

DISPOSAL OF THE 

HANFORD DEFENSE WASTES 


pia 5.3 

JUL1a1985 

WM DIVISION 

OREGON POSITION 

ON 

DISPOSAL OF THE HANFORD DEFENSE WASTES 

- JUL 14 1985 

WM DIVISION 

In April 1986 the U.S. Department of Energy issued a draft environmental 

impact statement (EI S) on Hanford defense waste dis posal. The draft EIS 

sets forth disposal options for radioactive wastes accumulated durin g . 

four decades of weapons production at Hanford. 

The ODOE'Hanford Advisory Committee sponsored two public workshops to 

discuss and .comment on EIS issues.. The Hanford Review committee reviewed 

the draft EIS and also provided technical comments. These reviews and 

comments were used to develop the Oregon position. 

V 

N 

J'uly 10, 1986 

Prepared by:. 

The Oregon Depactreent of Energy 

625 Marion Street NE, Salem. OR 97310 

The comments reflected the need for Oregon to take a strong position on 

deciding the permanent disposal of Hanford defense wastes. Our challenge 

is to obtain the necessary level of health and safety in the most cost 

effective way. Then, we most work to gain support for our position. 

Basis fo_r Oregon's Position 

No must eliminate thelong-term risks to pubttehealth and safety of 

defense wastes temporarily stored at Hanford. We should make decisions 

now that can be made now. Those wastes 

are easily cleaned up should 3.3.5.3 

be. For those wastes for which we have that the 

and disposal 

technology, and where Current practices eventually will lead to leaks, we 

should take ail reasonable actions to process and dispose of the waste. 

Some wastes are difficult to deal with, but current storage poses no 

Immediate problem. For those, we must develop greater confidence In our 

options. This process should be designed to take no more than the next q C 

five years. Our priority should be to avoid long term risks to ground 3. 3 • 5 

water and the river. Research should be focused on ways to dispose of 

wastes by looking for Innovative waste treatment techniques. 

Based on these criteria, the Governor has taken this position on Hanford 

defense wastes. 

1 1 p 11 

9 

3 • 3 w 1 • 1 

1) Transform existing and future high-level liquid wastes into 3 . x 8 . 

glass. Dispose of these wastes In a future geological 

repository. 

2) Treat and ship post-19 70 plutonium wastes (called transuranic 

ITRUI s) to the defense repository for plutonium wastes in 

New Mexico. 

wwt^ 

3 • 1 a 3 • L5

V 3 

l+l?•1'• 

®53 

3) All other wastes must be better understood in terms of the 0053 

trade-offs. Reasonable decisions must be made. but In light of 

the priorities mentioned above. 

-3- 

RECEIV'"D c DGE-RL 

RECEIVED CGF_RL 

The various wastes are discussed below. 

JUL 1 a IM 

JUL 1 d W6 

Double Shell Tanks contain high level liquids and suspended solids. 

should Investigate other cost effective means of retrieval. VI 

WAY DIVISION 605J believe this can be and should be achieved within five years. DIVISION 

Option I. Waste in these be retrieved,. gi asst p ied and 

pC5 

disposed in se future wast e 

geologic repository. the plant to 

the wastes in single shell tanks have been processed lea reduce the 

i these wastes could be completed by ng The cost 

water in them. This has reduced the possibility of 

of this 

s option is about million for existing 

waste, tanks. thus, time me spent research todisposal options 

and $1.1 billion for futureure waste. 

willl not significantly 

lcantly impact the environment Inn Me the short-term. 

Option 2. Dried and stabilized waste could be disposed near ground 

.surface. The waste could be covered with a rock and soil 

barrier to prevent flow of rainwater through the waste. 

Oregon's Position 

Oregon recommends option 1. This .material is liquid high-level 

waste. If left in liquid form, these wastes eventually will leak. 

e These wastes also are easily retrievable. They should be disposed In 

a Opel chic repository. This approach is consistent with standards 

for the commercial Industry. 

3.3 5,3 

If studies show that in-place stabilization is the best option for 

single shell tank wastes, engineered barriers should not be the only . r . . p 

means of protecting public health and safety. Multiple barriers are O U 

needed. An example would be to mix the wastes within the tank with 

grout. Thus, they would not easily be dissolved in water If It 

entered the tank. Engineered barriers should be relied upon as a 

secondary level of protection. 

Post-1970 Plutonium Codtaminated Wastes consist of contaminated equipment 

anal abo,atory wastes. This waste has been stored for retrieval since 

1970. 

V 

N 

Single Shell Tanks contain solids I. the formof sludge. or salt cake. 

Option 1. Removal and treatment of the waste at Hanford, Eventual 

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 

.shell tanks. But, it is older and more dilute. 

New Mexl on. This would require a processing facility to be 

completed by 1990-1993. The cost of this option is $180 

Option 1. The waste could be retrieved and separated into high-level 

milli..: 

and low-level waste. High-level waste could be converted 

to glass for future repository disposal. The loci-level - 

- Option 2. Near surface stabilization with a cement-like material. A 

waste could be converted to a cement-like material and 

barrier identical to that described in the second option 

disposed me site. for double shell tank waste - - will also be used. 

_ 

Option 2. The waste could be stabilized in place. This treatment 

Oregon's Po3ftion 

.old include filling the empty space In tanks with crushed -. 

'rock. The raleflow barrier describetl earlier would also be 

Oregon recommends option. 1. The storage of these wastes was designed 

used. 

for retrieval. These wastes pose an extremely long-term radiation 

hazard. They have been put in wooden boxes and steel drums and 

Option 3. There Is not enough information to choose now. We need a - 

.buried. The deterioration of these containers eventually will 33.53 3.3.5.3 

better understanding of the trade-offs and more confidence- 

release contamination Into the soil. They should be retrieved and 

In the options before we decide. 

disposed in the New Mexico repository. 


Oregon recommends Option 3.' The material in single shell tanks 

Pre-1910 Plutonium Contaminated Waste consists of general trash,. failed 

equipment. and 24 soil sites contaminated by releases directly to the 

3 3. 5 should be processed no matter what option is chosen. The best method ground. These wastes are not readily retrievable. 

. w 3 

is to retrieve and glassify it. But, this option involves tremendous 

most and needless potential radiation exposure to workers, US ME 

Option 1. Removal and treatment of buried solid waste and soil sites 

which exceed US ODE'S classification for law-level 

plutonium contaminated waste. Treated waste could be 

shipped to the defense repository for plutonium wastes in 

New Mexico. 

'

F 

f.. 

WC 053 

3 .3.5.3 


- g - JUL I d 1986 a d 

WM DIVISION 

Option 2. Immobilization of the waste burial grounds by filling with 

a cement-like mixture. The area Is to be covered with a 

raInflow barrier as previously described. 

Option 3. There is not enough Information to choose now. We need a 

better understanding of the trade-offs and more confidence 

In the options before we decide. 


Oregon recommends Option 3. The wastes should be removed and treated 

if reasonably achievable. These wastes pose the same hazard as 

past-1970 contaminated waste and should be treated the same. If this 

goal cannot be achieved, more confidence in stabilizing the waste and 

confirmation of barrier protection must be accomplished. Again, this 

should be completed within five years. 

These wastes have been buried for many years Spending more time to 

research proper retrieval and disposal methods will not Increase the 

the hazard In the short-term. 


JUL 14 1986 

WM DIVISION 

Congressional Initiatives to direct US DOE to comply with current federal O 

and state requirements on waste handling and disposal. A schedule of L 2 . 2 

compliance should be drawn up and enforced. Congress must provide 

- funding to achieve clean-up of these wastes as well. This funding should 

be provided before any of these actions are required by Congress '. 

2 . 2 . 9 

Forty years of defense materials p roduction has resulted in an enormous 

eminent of radioactive wastes at Hanford. So much waste poses difficult 

and tomplex retrieval, processing. and dis p osal p roblems. Funding has 

been ample for the production of the defense materials but not for waste 

disposal. Oregon believes. that funding policy is not acceptable. 

Congress requires the commercial nuclear industry to concurrently set 

aside funds for the disposal of radioactive wastes as they are 

generated. USOOE also should be subject. to this requirement. Plutonium 

production. should not be allowed without concurrently providing funding 

to dispose of generated wastes. 

Governor Atiyeh will be workingwith Oregon's Congressional delegation to 

see that these actions are carried out. 

V 

W 

Strontium and Cesium wastes. are double encapsulated in stainless steel 

cylinders. These wastes are stored in water basins. 

Option 1. The capsules could continue to be stored in water basins 

until 1995. Capsules could then be packaged and shipped to 

a future geologic repository. 

Option 2. Capsules could continue to be stored In water basins until 

2010. Beginning in 2010, the capsules could be placed in a 

dry storage vault. A protective barrier as described 

earlier could be constructed over the site In the years 

2013 to 2015. 


NOTE: This paper will be the. executive summary for the State of Oregon's 

technical and public comments on the Draft EIS. These formal comments 

will be submitted to US WE on or before August 9. 1986. 

3.3.5.3 

Oregon recommends Option 1. Many of the capsules have been leased to 

Industry for sterilization facilities and process control. The 

'remainder's stored in water pools and Is under constant attention. 

There is no Immediate hazard from short-term storage of this waste. 

But, these capsules are highly radloactivite and will remain so for 

thousands of years. Eventual geologic disposal will provide safe 

long-tern disposal. 

2 .3.1.13 

3.1.6.1 

Other Concerns 

Oregon also has serious concerns about chemical waste and low level 

radioactive wastes from defense activities. USDOE's proposal does not 

deal effectivel y with these tSlm.S. But, they are potentially serious 

risks to public health and safety and the environment. Oregon Supports 

LFIX B:mi 

293% (OI1F2)

1 7 a 

3i '- 054 

^/ 

F' ,^ T4„,P-, w -Q- 

-77 

°7°P^ µ^} 

'- '-t 

C1 yt^ — 

^vedl, J,v LL^:(a, a 

hue.-FJ ArnccosB 

2.3.1.14 wl °^ /y tE tam= Li : k P 

v 

A 

,L w iz3(,.. ^ Cvv(0^ l>n;f lavr-. ^(^' "t y-p C.^'^" 

^ p^ ^ lam, v-p Flis pm[[ ^^ ^; ,^. s M. îti^((//p^p g 

p /J 

54U- N[ /`^r ^"C ('UY r'3*e rp Cdv.Nw .JrAkfr^.e 

2) w ^ ^ u„n ^ 

r.,&6lr-css 

,^ p rr ® ! / ^r 

3J $'Pv^`..a-c,^ 1 ehe êdfFTCt.S -t /w/er^Y 

/ 

u 31' 

q-, t4 ^ q^. ie „ArR . 

^^ t "^ Y 

KSG^ 

( `S OCD i 

3^ SPa.SOrcr^ .? .h.^-7^-fWC^Jr`h dm^5^ ^^prfF a . 2a 

'n ^^ if q t SY 

âAJr ^'l^ g I 5 ^ %. 

s^*.+^ M1i ^ 

ki.^--^ 

}^l^ry 

(Qa 

'KxT T4 ^ î(-ert JS ^CS^ ^^ L[^he 4r -c-..— west 

SA C o^^' 

IIDD 

/J a`5 a^7-c cPe.rz /^, sri^+.v^ d/. 

/ / 

7^- aS,^n 

J^ 

x ^ô o^xC cwSM cQsPtY./ 

Q!'- M'^Y-':'rT^c^:cro(u' 3 

t°,+'wtr ea.( tue.^r 

p 

Q.+- lefr, 

/ 

w 

1 

:u^.^—^ ^z^ c^s=., se{c 

/. 

2.3.1.2 

FEC_IVzu DCE-ra. 

AL 141986 

WMDIVISIDN, i 

2G n 'Y J h ieL Mme..3-lvK kln vel a, (t' 

^/x,Q Aok^ f^,/^ v( q,, 

YD 

// /Q 4ṇ^n 

NnC^[^' 

/^^ we /-4.1 $ n/n cs5' S$ '1^1)bsA^^'// 

'Yn Hj M1YG ^yy °^ FMf (RyI- /.163 /1^ ,b RGa: NILS^ 

g 

K5 r*`9c5^ 

2.3.1.14

055 

d ll%7C a.vvâ- .;1c Fcw wa^sv—^ not 

2r^ C 

2.5.5 aJ 

I rE,4 d^ y^ ^ we.., 

// 

l Gryt ^fDy{ n )- 

IÎ1 

I y^r r9^ 

g/ 

I,I I_ 

TESTIMONY 

BY CONGRESSMAN RON WHEN 

REFUSE THE U.S. DEPARTMRNT OF ENERGY 

HEARINGS ON THE HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT nECeIVtU (L 

PORTLAND, OREGON 

JULY 10, 1986 

JUL 1 4 IM 

- WM DIVISION 

Thank you for convening this hearing. 

.any people in the Northeast ..a worried .beat the ....ibility o£.a 

futu re repository being built at Hanford. Bat not everyone is aware 

that the place holds enough waste right now for a madman'. nightmare. 

V 

Ill 

^- 

G N^ ^1-L l^Laa3TT 1 

^ l ^ I }^' S ^p^j h, O 

) 

< , Le ^ 5 w^ 

.,..:^ ^„ ^ er' 

/ 

ff((// 

^^ •yr 

/p 

Last February, the Northwest learned about the massive releases of - 

radiation into the air from Hanford. 

What xe didn't hear about Ss the massive dumping of liquid wastes 

into the soil at Hanford which has turned the .....dwatev - 

radioactive. 

The majority of the citi.... of the Northwest have nb idea he. much 

Wants sits in old and corroded tanks at Hanford.. 

They don't knew the story of tank 105-A, how it ruptured and 

.,filed its contact. into the Boil when someone put waste in it 

that was too hot. 

They do not knew about tanks with holes plugged by radioactive 

salt.. 

- 

They do not know about "slurry growth" in the n w double Walled 

tanks -- tanks filled with radioactive wastes rising like cakes 

I. the oven, filled with bubble. of potentially flammable gas. - 

I am not asc entiat. I can't talk a beat nuclear physic.. But I 

can tell You what Oregonians do and don't want. 

2.2.1. 

Oregonians want DOE to clean up Hanford. 

Oregonians don't want DOE to turn Hanford into a National Sacrifice 

Zone. 

- /cP. ^"C ar ,^ yafm^p ev^vP 

GU e^^m-l^ Fv ^p

_ - 

055 M 

V Q1 

TESTIMONY/OOH HEARING 

TESTIMONY/DOE HEARING RECEIVED DOEERL JULY 10, 1986 

.JULY 10, 1986 

PAGE I 

PACE z 

JUL 1 d 19860065; 

Gcr 

WM DIVISION 


"JUL 1 a 1986 0 

Morthwesterners also don't want DOE to leave nuclear waste in One last point 

3 . 3 . 2. 1 before I g It is y nderst tiding than"RIVISION 

hearing 1 designed tallow as y citizens of the Northwest a 

J 

Shallow graves in the ground when there is a reasonable alternative. 

. possible to share with DOE their opinion of the draft environmental 

That's a lesson D OE has learned.In fact, DOE appears t 

impact statement. As a public Outreach exercise, however, I'm 

1 

o 

2. 2.1Q believe that the soil at Hanford v nothing more than Nature's Own afraid this hearing ha g failed on two points. 

Nuclear Waste Treatment Facility 

N mber pne; -uMe[Che National Environmental Policy Act, it a 

2 O Take, for 

2..1 L 1 

example, the use of soil to disposeofradioactive liquid customary -- if not mandatory -- for DOE to flag for the public 

was tea. That a illegal at c memfal nuclear iacvliilea, sad DOE which Of the EIS alternetivea it prefer.. It he. at done eo in 

itself has adopted a guideline against the practice. 

this case. 

2.2.10 

2. 

c 

:/ 

But it has never applied the guideline to Hanford. TO this day, 

Hanford pours gallons upon gallons of radioactive liquids into the 

soil, shaking your head when people criticize you for it. 

The a attitude n . to apply to Solid wastes. 

WE'. Fiscal Year 198 7 budget request for money to look at ways to 

remove the tank waste from Hanford is peanuts compared to what it 

wants to Spend to develop ways to keep it in the ground.. 

c C They tell Cengresa keeping the waste in the ground will save 

2 . :J J maracas Sums Frankly, I cannot believe it HAS to cost eleven 

billion dollars to remove the wastes at Hanford to a repository. I 

just don't think DOE has looked hard enough for a solution. 

2 .2.1 

2 /^ 

.4.1. 1 

The third critical step for the Northwest in for DOE to take an 

honest look at removing all the waste from the site -- and not be 

prejudiced by the munlawful decision to table the search fora second 

repository. 

Finally, DOE must atop putting itself above this country's 

eneironmental.laws -- more specifically, the hazardous waste laws. 

The defense waste at Hanford isn't just radioactive. It's toxic -- 

filled with heavy metals and organic compounds It's also 

2.3.1.. 14 chemically reactive -- and under the winng conditions, perhaps even 

explosive. 

2.4.1.1 

Cangee.e has xrustled with the problem of hazard... waste. three 

time. in the last decade, and each time it has given the 

Environmental Pratection Agency (EPA) the power to regulate them. 

And, yet, time and time again. DOE has ignored or .resisted EPA 

regulation. In fact, DOE had to be taken to court before it would 

admit that it ... Subject to the hazardous waste laws. 

That is like palming extra cards in a game of poke[ while everyone 

else is betting on the cards already disclosed. My cards are 

already on the table. So ... those of the other witnesses at 

today's'-- and other --hearings.' Marc are DOE's cards? 

Mat trade-offs 1s DOE willing to make to pursue it. preferred 

alternative? What will that mean for the groundwater -- and the 

soil - and the livelihood of Northeasterners? 

Without this full disclosure, l feel a bit like we're tieing asked to 

operate with blinders on -- and I don't think that serves any of me. e. 

Me .....d concern has to do with the way the DOE sought public input 

into this hearing. For the life of me I can't figure but why with a 

more than $1 million public information budget, the deppartment 

couldn't have had a local contact number or a 1-800number instead 

of requiring people to call long distance t0 Richland to sign up to 

speak. 

2.3.2.8 

2.3.2.2 

p 

2.3.2. L 8 

p 

2.3. 2. 8 

Mr. Chairman, if you come away with any message today I hope it is 

-this. Oregonians care -- and deeply --.about what in :done at 

Hanford. We care about whether our water is contaminated -- out /^ 

3. 2. 

environment endangered -- our future cheated. we may not live in 

4 

Washington,. but for Oregonians, Hanford is about as up close and 

per tonal a it get.. 

sea 

1 

Even today, DOE ...let. recognizing EPA and the state of 

underwaste68al law to regulate the hazardous 

2.4.1. 1 camponen't. afatheseidefense 

2.4.1.1 

DOE is Got -- and mu at e not be above the lax. If DOE beli ve. it 

dese ves special treatment, it rshould go to the authorities, apply 

for a varianceand pp e it. It Shouldn't just pretend that that. 

is one set of rules tax everyone else and another for it.

a 

f 8° 3 

_A7 ej 

is 

M69 

Sf M[SR1' OF IEIII41. E. iNt4 SKI 

on behalf of 

THE IPPLUE OF ^ VMERS OF ©ldtK Cl]U 11Y, WASHIN 

July 10, 1986 

SUeIFGf: Cements on the USWE praft Emftermotal Inpact Statement on 

Dafenae Wastes. 

RECEIVZD DOE-RI 

AL 14 IM 

WM DIVISION C 

RECEjV&j DOE-RL 

to'prounte public lnrmlva set by providing "lay" avlanation, 0 a As,M 1 a 1966 

other teals men-experts have the time and facility to comprehend. 

664 

WMDIVISION 

xhe..LC_N,4 0,, .- shore the State of Washington ' s belief that this process 

is not the naval type of EIS review. We are ephatimlly net in the position 

I an Helen Fanetouski. I reside at 12714 SE Park Street, Vancouver, 

WA 98684. I appear today in the cou ny of other mutters of the Nuclear Waste 

Committee of the league of Wonen voters of Clark County, Washington. We wish to 

present policy-oriental cuementa on the subject EIS . and the overall waste 

disposal process entrusted to the USDOE. 

a{cc. 

The iM^, has . fortunately benefitted from a close and cooperative relationship 

with. Use Washington State Nuclear West. Board, the Offire of Nuclear Waste 

Of mazsholli% argxmons aeg inst a mnjet Federal action. Instead, we are all 

..possible for helpi ng you fi nd says to ensure through -r..di.1 ass eures sM 

planning that Hanford def en se waste s, are disposed of safely and effectively. 

The M of CC endorses the generally supportive stance of our state onwards the 

USOOE's c®itasnt to isproved waste sanagsnent at Hanford. In return, w urge 

you W cooperatively assist in meeting the pcogma re Iuiranents of the Washington 

State tern , and specifically to anticipate and/or coply with the State's 

continuing Breeds for timely, axasate, and complete information. 

2.3.2.12 

V 

Masummset, a nd the Miclea, Waste Advisory Council on which ona of one moaners 

serves. We have also observed or participated in a variety of settings anal wrkshops 

relevant to defense waste and/or waste monaga enc at Hanford. We generally 

defer to anal racer in .the covenants under preparation by the Mn'B and undergoing 

extensive coordination within the state prior to the August 9th deadline for 

public comment. While we recognise .and expect that the state's draft review 

comments may be further refined, we are war appreciative of the openness of our 

store officials in circulating their is. analysis at public aeetings tbrwgh- 

out the state a for their rec eptivity to citizen viewpoints. 

O re characteristic of the. state of Washin ton's approach we wish you 

would sealers is an awidamx of the project,,scific, o, pmgrammtic approach 

to ampler technical and policy issues which are frequently inextricably 

interrelated, irrespective of the class of waste. The general public really 

cannot cope well wlth yea. caipartmntalizatfon of the issues and the failure 

rt 

-Y . 1 . 1 

With respect to the DEIS, we .have three amjor concerns to express. 

(1)We urge you to revise the analysis in both are, and structure to 

provsde for a austere approach town integrated dis po sal > strm for both the 

radioective a nd emaciated chenirnl wastes. the latter hove ndt gotten the 

traahrent their presence at Hanford and the hazards they present warrant. the 

State will wtline in its review — m an Ammatim mehnnical concept for 

their boosting: 'ibis concept should be investigated by'the USDOE. 

(2) We urge you to waist the analysisto expressly consider the 

technical inplicatians of presidential decisions: the first, to cminglem 

defense wastes in s repository, and Wu second, to indefinitely postpone the 2 

sacred repository progree and possibly aneos the WA of 1982 to immense tonnage 

linite. We sh ore the cmnrern that thers may be an underlying aeeumption that the 

sf aR le-ahail tank waame are W b e, stabilimd in place. Such an assumption 

r he rsdfioatiaa for the engineering design sod capacity of a deop repository . 

The State of Washinton senders if there is an insufficient b wme Of intect 

3.3.5.8 

.1.3 

.3.5.7 

page 2.

.......-...... 

_ 

C 

yY € 4 

c 0 4 8 a 

05! 

^9 

Chairman, 

Subcommittee on General Oversight, 

Northwest Power, and Forest Management 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 

U.S. No... of Nola, ... ntatives 

HEARING BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

'i Lo 


TESTIMONY BY U.S. PEPIIESENTATIVE JIM WEAVER Page Two 

JUL iq 1986 

ON 

DISPOSAL OF SANFORD DEFENSE NIGH LEVEL, 

TRANSURANIC AND TANK WASTES, 

DRAFT ENVIRONAENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

WMDNISION CL? 


0`"57 

00 5, 7 

JUL 14 06 C01 

WM DIVISION 

In 1960, Dr. Lev Tamura.., A Soviet Scientist who later 

I 

emigrated, traveled along a highway near the city of Kyshtym on the O 

eastern slope of the Urals. He later reported that: 

'About 100 kilometers from Sverdlovsk, a highway sign 

warned drivers not to atop for the next 20-30 kilometers 3 

CF 

and to drive through at maximum speed. On both aides of 

the road, as far as one could see, the land was deadr no 

village., no towns, no Cultivated fields or pastures, no 3 f} 

hard., no people, nothing. • -^• 

fi 

American Scientists now agree that this Contaminated wasteland was f1 

the result of careless disposal of the radioactive waste resulting 

from producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. The Soviet facility 

is thought to have been patterned after the U.S. facilities at the 

Hanford Reservation. 

n 

0 

C 

M 

July 10, 1906 

Bonneville Power Adminiatratien Auditorium 

Portland, Oregon 

2:00 P.m. 

DOE'. 1000-page Draft Envir..ntal Impact Statement (EIS) on 

disposal of radioactive waste resulting from military-related 

nuclear activities at Hanford differs from its subject matter in 2 

rays: first, it is not radloactivei..econd, it Can be usefully 

recycled. - -

. 

05'7 05'7 

Page Three 


JUL 1? 1986 ot5l 

WM DIVISION 

Page Pour 


JUL. 1 4 1986. X59 

Wh1 DIVISION 

Do 

O 

p- C 

STOP MAKING MORE WASTE, Now 

This document fails to-meet the requirements of the National 

environmental Policy Act of 1969, because it fails to even mention 

2.5 e6. the most desirable alternative to disposing of the additional 

2,5 , 6 

military high-level and transuranic radioactive waste now being 

produced at Hanford: STOP HAKING.IT, NOW. STOP MAKING TOR PROBLEM 

MASS. The HIS state. that the radioactivity of the 'future tank 

waste' produced between now and the year 1995 will by then exceed 

that of the 'existing tank waste . by a factor e£-3 (200 million 

curie. v. 70 million curies). We non eliminate three-fourths of 

the problem by not producing more waste. 

Where does all of the waste come from? It results from the 

production of plutonium for nuclear weapon.. Low-enriched uranium 

fuel is irradiated in the N-Reactor. The spent fuel is then - 

chopped up and dissolved in the PURKX reprocessing plant, which 

extract. the , tonium and leaves the fission products and 

transuranic elements (including some of the plutonium) as liquid 

high-level radioactive waste, which is still pumped into huge tanks 

buried under about le feet Of _dirt. 

and moreplutonium for nuclear weapons. NO(. We do not need to 

expand our nuclear arsenal. But the Reagan Administration is now 

engaged in the biggest build-up of nuclear weapon. and plutonium 

ever. The testimony presented before my Subcommittee on June 16 by 

the Department of Defense and two independent experts on nuclear 

arms (including Dr. Theodore Taylor; . former nuclear weapon designer 

and former deputy director of the U.S. Defense Atomic Support 

2.5.6 

Agency)) showed that, in any event, continued plutonium production. 

at Hanford I. not needed for national security. We could . shut down 

the N-Reactor right now, halt the PUNRX reprocessing plant, stop 

producing high-level radioactive waste at Hanford, and still get an 

equal amount of plutonium (about 600 kilograms per year) in leas 

dangerous ways, such asm 

-1. Recycling the plutonium in retired warheads. We already have 

2. 

100,000 kilograms of plutonium in existing weapons--160 times 

the annual production of the N-Reactor and PUNSX. Plutonium 

has a half-life of 24,000 years. It doesn't wear Oct. 

more efficiently using plutonium scrap. The existing scrap 

may be equal to as such as 10 years of N-Reactor production. 

Does our nation need to use Sanford facilities to produce more 

3. If absolutely"neee.sary,' expanding plutonium productionat

05'7 057 

Page Five 


JUL 12.198 6 600 

Page six 


JUL 141966 Ca57 

µM1 DIVISION 

WM DIVISION 

00 

N 

the Savannah River reactors in South Carolina, which already 

produce about 1500 kilograms of plutonium annually and are 

leas vulnerable than the N-Reactor to catastrophic accident. 

Shutting down the N-Reactor and the PORE% reprocessing plant 

would also protect the people of the Northwest from the threat of 

2.5. 6 cmtaetropbic nuclear accidents that could involve either facility. 

At my Subcommittee's hearing on May 19 here in Po rt land, 

independent experts on graphite reactors testified that an N- 

Reactor accident on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster, causing 

.4.3.1 thousands of injuries, was distinctly possible. The expert. 

3 

identified several unresolved safety problem., including: 

1. Reaction of the uranium metal fuel with water to produce 

hydrogen and the potential for explosion. 

2. The possibility of single pipe failures that could disable 

both the primary and emergency core Cooling system and lead to 

melting of 70 fuel rode per failure. 

3. Ignition of a self-sustaining graphite fire by the heat of 

melting fuel. 

4. Contamination of the Columbia River by the once-through - 

emergency Core cooling system. 

S. Multiple pressure spikes defeating the filtered confinement fj 

system and resulting in unfiltered re leases of radioactivity. 

6. Absence of seismic support appropriate for the seismicity of r+ 

' ). 

the area. (ROE's FY 1987 budget request itself states that 1.. 

the lack Of seismic upgrades could lead to an M-Reactor 

0. 

meltdown.) 

C 

^. 

Possible core overheating due to release of Nlgner energy 

stored in the cooler portions of the graphite core and 

reflector. 

E. The absence of tested emergency planning for serious accidents 

releasing radioactivity beyond the Hanford Reservation. 

9. Other problems, such an lack of control room habitability 

during an accident, redundant cables routed through the same 

spreading room and subject to fire, broken valve parts caught 

in the cooling system, and lack of adequate neutron monitoring 

equipment. 

9 

Q 

0 0) 

CD 

fp 

d

, m 

6 

jp.3 

^ ^5 

t F f #^ ?Y -J 

05'7 057 


Page Beer. 

duL 1 d M 6067 

Fags Eight 

RECEIVED WEAL 

WM DIVISION 

2 

DOH has now abut down the N-Reactor, because 3 former welding 

inspectors had falsified their credential. and Another 8 welding 

inspectors were incorrectly given passing grades on written exam.. 

If that is enough to make DOH skittish about operating the plant, 

then it should be closed permanently, right now. when the House Of 

C G Representatives considers appropriations for Hanford, probably in 

..left late duly, I will offer an amendment to cut off funds for operating 

the N-Reactor. 

This Waste is not only dangerous to people, but it makes Hanford a 

prime target for attack by terrorists. 

3.4.3.1 

3.4.3.7 

Nor does the federal government's track record of predicting 

My Subcommittee hoe - yet to closely examine the PORE% plant, 

but that is high on our agenda of areas to pursue. 

safe operation at Hanford warrant confidence. In 1959, the manager 

of Hanford facilities testified before a congressional committee 

N 

THE DANGERS OF HANFORD'S MILITARY RADIOACTIVH WASTE 

that the single-walled tanks were expected to last for 100 to 200 

years. But they had already started to leak, and now 60 of the 149 

tanks are either confirmed or probable m leaker.. m A 1953 O.S. 

2.2.12 

Geological Survey report, which had pointed out that the tanks were 

The HIS blandly asserts that all of the military radioactive 

potentially hazardous, was classified by the Atomic energy 

3 .4 m 3. 1 

waste at Hanford can easily be handled to prevent any threat to the 

public. But the discussion is incomplete; there is no mention of 

the fact that, as Dr. Taylor testified before my Subcommittee r the 

Inventories of dangerous isotopes in shallow burial are equal to 

Commission (MCI and not published until 1972. In 1968, the AEC 

also classified a highly critical report by the General Accounting 

Office. 

the that resulting from the explosions of several thousand one- 

In the 19605, AEC had to dig up trench Z-9 at Hanford, which 

megaton nuclear Weapons . , According to Dr. Taylors 

contained about 100 kilogram. of plutonium. An AEC report 

concluded that intrusion of water into the trench could have 

resulted in m e nuclear chain reaction.' It was probably such a 

3.4.3.8

1 

t 

6 

05'7 05'7 

Page Nine 

RECEIVED Duc-RL 

JUL 161986 

685 -1 

19MDIVISION 

page Ten 


JUL141986 pn57 

WM DIVISION 

00 

W 

3.3.2.1 

chain reaction or chemical explosion that caused the Eyshtym 

disaster in the Soviet Onion. 

THE LINK TO COMMERCIAL HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL 

The EIS clearly displays bias toward leaving in place and 

trying to "stabilize" the waste now in the 149 single-walled tanks 

L by filling the tanks with gravel or sand, covering the area with 18 

.feet of rock and dirt, and erecting signs on the surface saying, 

literally, "Don't Dig Here." This bide is reflected in thaw 

1. bOE'. May 1986 Environmental Assessment. for the 1 sites 

Selected for characterization as the first repositoty for 

3 .3.2.1 commercial high-level radioactive waste (Hanford, Yucca 

Mountain, Deaf Smith) do not mention a-need to accommodate 

waste retrieved from the single-walled tanks.. 

rather than "stabilization" in .place. 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 specifically-requireS all .t 

high-level waste to be disposed in deep geologic repositories. w2 2.4.1 . 4 

claims It need not follow these instructions for waste that may be 

difficult to retrieve. Thus, it appears that DOE efforts on 

defense waste and commercial waste are either uncoordinated, or it n 

is Politics as usual getting in the way of the best scientific 2.4.1.2 

decision. 

What happen. if the vast.$ are-commingled and are disposed of 

at a high level repository located at Hanford, but defense ..etas 

meanwhile continue to. be generated at a high rate? Where Hill the 

addlt.onal waste be placed when the Hanford repository I. fall? It 

will have to be transported somewhere, which means the 

transportation issue will .have to be dealt with, either now or 

later. zero transportation of nuclear wastes from Hanford is not 3.4.2.2 

an option. 

3. 3. 2 . 1 

2. DOE's unlawful decision to cancel work on selecting possible 

sites for a second repository was based upon a conclusion that 

a second repository would not be needed until about the year 

2020. But it would be needed sooner, if all high-level 

radioactive waste at Hanford were W receive geologic disposal 

WHAT TO DO WITH THE EXISTING WASTE 

The fact that DOE can even consider leaving some of the high-

.3 

4-4 

d d e 

^ 

f iy 4 8 V 

05'7 057 

Page Eleven 


JUL 14 1986 tb5^ 

Page Twelve 

VIM DIVISION J 


JUL 1 4 1986 Lull 

VIM ,DIVISION 

C 

A 

2.4e 1. 6 

level radioactive Waste in place is astounding. First of all, it's 

illegal. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 specifically 

requires deep geologic disposal for high-level radioactive waste, 

Whether military or civilian. Second, it seems hypocritical to 

leave the military high-level waste in questionable tanks near the 

surface, When all commercial high-level waste is to be buried in 

2, 2 . 7 deep geologic repositories. Why is it acceptable to leave the 

military waste near the surface, when we find it so necessary to 

bury the commercial wastes in deep repositories? 

Tank Waste - 

I believe . that the Waste in the double-walled tanks should be 

extracted, solidified, and shipped to a geologic repository not at 

3.3.1.1 

Hanford. DOE should not leave the waste in the single-Walled tanks 

nor at this time procede With its half baked and potentially 

dangerous $7 billion plan to cut open these tanks and dig out the 

sludge arN salt-caked Wastes. There is now no good method for 

imolati.g this waste from the environment. We can only further 

study possible technologies, While in the meantime creating no new 

3.3.5.1 

waste. 

The eventual treatment of the waste in the single-walled tanks 

may be costly. In testimony before my Subcommittee on June 9, Ben 

Rusche of DOE told me that the o nly reason Hanford ranked so low in 3.1.4.5 

DOE 'a site-ranking methodology (which was then ignored) was the 

cost of building the repository and transporting the wastes to the 

site. Even thoug h . the costs of the .Hanford site might be more than 

those for other sites, he stated--and Claimed the National Academy 

of Sciences backed him up on this--that cost should not determine 

the final ranking/ that there a re more important factors than cost 

in deciding where to permanently repose these dangerous wastes. 

Now, while I disagree With Mr. Rusche's assertion that cost alone 

put Hanford in last place (DOE's methodology ranked Hanford last in 

other respects as well), I agree that dollar cost should not guide 

the disposal decision. Yet cost appears to be an overriding factor 

in the military waste EIS. .DOE seems to be pursuing the cheapest 

route here, yet disregards cost when deciding what to do with 

commercial wastes. 

Other Wastes 

The post-1970 transuranic waste should be shipped to the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico, which Was built for 

that purpose. But further study is apparently required before DOE 

can deal with the older transuranic Wastes dumped into the ground. 

3.1.3.25

0 

z 

05'7 05'7 

Page Thirteen 


JUL 1 4 1986 6659. 

page. Fourteen 

WM OIVISION 

heCEIVED DOE-RL 

JUL 1 4 1986 

0661 

VlM DIVISION 

DO 

M 

3.1 . 2 

.5 The strontium and cesium waste capsules Should be shipped to the 

geologic repository. 

: OTHER PROBLEMS 

I see other. problems with the EIS: - 

level.• 

- - 

2.4.1.8 

1. It redefines some high-level and transuranic waste as 'lowr^ 

2 .4.1. 8 2. It then ignores the significant volumes of low-level 

radioactive wastes, including those previously defined a 

high-level or transuranic. 

It Mails to plan for disposal of the old reactors at Hanford 

0' 

-2.3.1.14 

previously operated for military purposes. 

6. It merely mentions possible technologies for further 

processing of the high-level waste to take place after the 

O 

3 .1. 8 .2 

decision is made on .which. alternative to adopt. These 

technologies. such as grout and vitrification, should be 

discussed in the EIS itself. 

S. It assumes that the existing facilities will operate 

flawlessly, with no accidents. 

1 

6. it fails to consider the hazardous chemical content of the 2. 3.1.14 

waste.. - 3.1.6.1 

7. It treats the Columbia River as a Sewer system, failing to 

3.2.4. 1 

account for harm to fish and downstream user... it also 

3,5.6.6 

9 5 6 . 6 

ignores potential flooding and absence of upstream dams. 

CJ 

6.. It neglects the effects of range fires and subsequent wind 3.5 .1. 100 

erosion of oil. 

9. It disregards that the Hanford Reservation is part of lands 2.4 . 2. 2 

ceded to the Yakima Indian Nation. 

10. 'Washington state authorities believe that ROE has repeatedly 

and systematically misused references to scientific 4.1. 10 

literature. 

I intend to address some of the.. other problems in By written 

comments in August. '

• M 

co 

M 

^1 

- RECEIVED DCE-RL 

Orville F.HRLMD. 

Stetsmt of Oreille F. 9111 JUL 1 4 1986 Q0. 

COneuOmM—Nuclei Fuel CXls RECEIY U LGE-RL page two 

1610 S.E. 127th Avenue July lo, 1986 WM DIVISION 

Vancouver. WA 98684 JUL 14 1986 

Telephone 12061269203 4- 

^TLS^ in the final malyaia as the Shover sltarh tivs. 

WMDIVSION 

Jnyy 30, 1986 

Angry, frightened, fwtafeN, mai mieinfo.ei cltiaem pr ovide the 

3fAT&59f P IRKffilt7ID AT THE 

DvpaxEigaa ,-mss Vt a tough audlmma, be pep t^^ ipfo ti. 

D. 6. D WF MX rf OF gHHPOT HUHIHO 

ON 

(( YJ,s. .n M.Q+..eryi m 'la^dµS^.J 

rr tLIWP DEPtil9H 1dSPg'i1ISP03V. 

getM1arlrirao3ZeSieib - cult. K^You va37:, mE E 

^r r-j 

to shat others lees amid or implied here I believe pleed that the pWlis, be patient ¢rut uMeretand a your effort.. 

that the nl ^ of p.e r,, amt its predeeaewn have dame an eceeptabley 

if not'msewtuts" and Job in handlin, and hbariw sadioeatin 1^ , A^yQ 

2.3. 2 . 12 sestaa at Hanford aui other defers site.. 

The Depertmont Sato be cme emb'd for its cmodbe s, and effort. to 

0 

— NA -^" 

meamh oat albrmtivee for the dleppael of sieting ®C flrtuie redloantis C6vtir. ^ 

setae st Hanford. to publielrm shoes alteruslives, mod to SdILSit c setts, 

a i aoggarbl. oa th.. alternatives. 1Ta Deperlment has a g.og artuan m^9 3 

` s 

task in sales" an acoeptoble'ai sortable pressor or pn6eeee s, for the 

disposal or these vaataa, 4° 

A helsume in my aastal mod health pnteatlm, radiation mpasn 

2 . 2 a 4 

mad safety ressurea for aorta., ai coet spanditarea and aMatim... as 

2 .2.11 

a met. Orr ratim simply cemot afford to Submit to unreseamable demand. 

much " cmvar" the Site book to a 'pristine" State Wen then im So mach 

d®end for use or linited resSoveaa. Sack a .Shctaroe as ..is" nor 

nation ,. poor - yes, and m en the rM-. poor -, eleem p of toric .sate 

Sit., funding mceasaiy defense aotimitiea., and the like, moat tetra 

p riority peer -iM Smllmitml mtpsdit ems for estamies motisma Wem the 

identinex bssflts 1te ®all, pather, only a belmu,e shearing the health 

2.3.2.12 

mW safety -of the public Sh ould be aecaeeary or retained. phony I heiiva 

mama madtflcatisn of the combimd alte.ative, it not the .met elt>aktls 

3.3.3.1 describe d In the temft 9rvin®entmh IMett Statement, should W selects,

9 

ra 

am BTi:rif 

;.^.EiVc^ Cc-RL [oaulnron^r ,1^. ^;,deFy 

eUL 141986 a ',3y H!/ 

VVM DIVISION 6 Sq /Zzo^ /5(J" ^ 52% 

Pl/Pg xc1, 0/L 9720'/ 

RECEIVE) COE-RL 

JUL 141986. 

WMDIVISION 

TESTIMONY OF PORTLAND CITY COMMISSIONER NIKE LINDBERG 

ON THE V. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 

DEFENSE WASTE DEIS PAGE 2 

IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE DISPOSAL OF HANFORD DEFENSE WASTES 

YOU NAY BE ABLE TO PERSUADE SOME PEOPLE THAT PUMPING PLUTONIUM 

IN THE OREGON PUBLIC HEARING. 

RIGHT DOWN INTO THE WATER TABLE THAT FEEDS THE COLUMBIA RIVER IS 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION AUDITORIUM, 

SAFE, BUT YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE LARGEST MUNCIPALITY 

JULY 10, 1986 

ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER. WE WILL NOT STAND FOR IT. 

2.3.1.12 

MEMBERS OF THE HEARING PANEL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GOOD AFTER- 

THE CITY OF PORTLAND AND ITS CITIZENS HAVE STATED MANY TIMES THAT 

NOON. IAN CITY COMMISSIONER MIKE LINDBERG OF THE PORTLAND CITY 

THEY ARE VITALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS UPSTREAM. A 

3.2.6.1 

00 2.3.1.12 

V 

2.3.2.10 

COUNCIL. I AN HERE TODAY TO MAKE THREE MAIN POINTS REGARDING 

YOUR DRAFT EIS. FIRST, YOUR WORK TOTALLY NEGLECTS THE ECONOMIC 

AND PUBLIC HEALTH EFFECTS ON THE CITY OF PORTLAND, THE LARGEST 

DOWNSTREAM POPULATION CENTER. SECOND, YOU HAVE PRODUCED SUCH A 

SEVERELY FLAWED AND INCOMPLETE PIECE OF WORK THAT IT SHOULD BE 

RAPIDLY INCREASING NUMBER OF PORTLANDERS ARE CRITICAL OF THE V. 

3. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OPERATION OF HANFORD'S N-REACTOR, ARE 

WORRIED ABOUT THE STORAGE OF EXISTING DEFENSE WASTES, AND ARE 

ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO HANFORD BEING DESIGNATED THE NATION'S ONLY 

CIVILIAN NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY. THE WEEK OF JUNE 16-EOTH WAS 

2.1.1 

2.4.1.5 

3.2.6.1 

THROWN OUT AND STARTED OVER. THIRD, THE STATE OF OREGON, WHICH 

COULD BE DISASTROUSLY AFFECTED BY THE CONTINUING UNSAFE STORAGE 

OF LEAKING RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT HANFORD, DESERVES MUCH MORE THAN 

THIS ONE PUBLIC HEARING. 

PORTLAND IS THE LARGEST CITY DOWNSTREAM OFHANFORD'S DEFENSE 

WASTES. IT, AND OTHER CITIES AND FARMS ALONG THE COLUMBIA RIVER 

'HANFORD AWARENESS WEEK' IN PORTLAND AND INCLUDED, AMONG MANY 

CIVIC EVENTS, A CITY CLUB ADDRESS ON WHY WE CAN'T TRUST THE V.S. 

D.O.E. TO SAFELY STORE RADIOACTIVE WASTE. 

THE PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL HAS PASSED A NUMBER OF RESOLUTION$ ON 

HANFORD. ON MARCH S. 1903. WE OPPOSED HANFORD BEING MADE A 

FEDERAL REPOSITORY AND REOUESTED THAT CONGRESS GIVE OREGON THE 

2.5.5 

2.1.1 

2.3.1.12 

GORGE, COULD BE ECONOMICALLY RUINED OUT IF YOU CONTINUE TO STORE 

NUCLEAR WASTE USING INADEQUATE METHODS THAT CONTINUE TO LEAK 

SAME RIGHTS AS WASHINGTON STATE. IN APRIL 1983, I DEMANDED, 

BEFORE CONGRESSMAN WEAVER'S COMMITTEE. THAT OREGON RECEIVE MONEY 

SLOWLY INTO THE RIVER. YET YOUR DRAFT CONTAINS ONLY 3 PAGES ON 

TO STUDY WHAT YOUR UPSTREAM WASTE REPOSITORY I9 NOW DOING TO US 

3.2.6.4 

'SOCIOECONOMICS." AND ALL OF THAT IS ON THE AREA IMMEDIATELY 

SURROUNDING HANFORD. GENTLEMEN. THAT SIMPLY WILL NOT DO. 

AND HOW IT MAY EFFECT PORTLAND'S ECONOMIC LIFE IN THE FUTURE. 

JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO I WAS GLAD TO SEE THAT THE GOVERNOR OF 

OREGON HAS FINALLY BEEN FIT TO JOIN THIS GROWING CHORUS.

a a 3 aS 4 $ 

059 

RECEIVE. DOE-RL 

JUL I A 1986 ocs`7 

WM DIVISION 

IRECENEL, DOE-RL 

aUL 14 1986 

WM DIVISION czs 


DEFENSE WASTE DEIS - - PAGE.4 

ON MARCH 14, 1986. THE CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED 

RADIOACTIVE. OTHER STATES OR .NATIONS MIGHT REFUSE TO BUY THEIR 

DO 

DO 

2.5.6 

2.3.1.12' 

3.2.6.4 

SENATOR HATFIELD'S DEMAND FOR AN INDEPENDENT AND EXPEDITED U. S. 

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROBE OF THE N- REACTOR, ON MAY 20, 

1986. I ASKED THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES TO PUT SCIENTISTS 

AND ENGINEERS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR SAFETY ON ITS PANEL 

EXAMINING THE .SAFETY OF THE N-REACTOR AND NAMED A NUMBER OF 

SUCH PROFESSIONALS. AND JUST LAST WEEK 'I SENT A LETTER TO 

CONGRESSMAN JIM WEAVER SUPPORTING HIS AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT THE 

.EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS ON OPERATION OF THE N-REACTOR UNTIL CONGRESS 

HAS HAD AT LEAST 120 DAYS TO CON5IDER THE RESULTS OF THE O.O.E.-S 

SAFETY STUDIES AND THOSE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 

WHY DID THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THESE RESOLUTIONS? BECAUSE THE 

FINANCIAL LIVELIHOOD OF PORTLAND. ITS BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS. 

COULD BE TOTALLY DEVASTATED BY AN ACCIDENT OR LEAK OF RADIOACTIV- 

ITY INTO THE COLUMBIA RIVER. THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT HELPS US TO 

PUT REAL NUMBERS ON THE VERY BAD ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF 

WIDESPREAD RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION AND I5, FRANKLY. A TOPIC 

WHICH YOUR FLAWED HIS SHOULD HAVE STUDIED IN DETAIL IN ITS THREE 

VERY THICK VOLUMES. HOW CAN YOU IGNORE REGIONAL ECONOMIC COSTS? 

THROUGHOUT THIS REGION, THE COLUMBIA RIVER IS DEPENDED ON FOR 

IRRIGATION. SHIPPING, INDUSTRY AND RECREATION. A CONTAMINATED 

RIVER COULD PREVENT FARMERS FROM IRRIGATING THEIR CROPS, OR. IF 

HARVEST. RECENTLY.- WESTERN EUROPEAN NATIONS REFUSED TO BUT ANY 

3.2.6.3 

FOOD5TUFF3--INCLUDING GRAIN, VEGETABLES. HEAT OR MILK--FROM AN 

AREA WITHIN 640 MILES OF CHERNOBYL'S. N- REACTOR. 

WHAT IF PEOPLE REFUSED TO BUY OUR FOOD BECAUSE A WASTE LEAK AT 

HANFORD MADE THEM WORRY ABOUT EATING POSSIBLY RADIOACTIVE WHEAT? 

NOW MUCH MONEY WOULD THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST LOSE? IN 1984 THE 

THREE STATES OF WASHINGTON, IDAHO. AND OREGON HARVESTED 31.1 

BILLION WORTH OF WHEAT AND OTHER FOOD GRAINS. THIS BILLION 

DOLLAR HARVEST GREW WITHIN A 640 -MILE RADIUS OF HANFORD'S WASTE 

STORAGE ANDN-REACTOR. SO WE COULD LOSE A BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR 

IF PEOPLE THOUGHT THE COLUMBIA WAS BECOMING RADIOACTIVE AND 3.2.6.3 

PRODUCING RADIOACTIVE GRAIN. 

THE VALUE OF ALL OTHER CROPS GROWN AND SOLD FROM OUR REGION IH 

1984 WAS 33.3 BILLION. THE TOTAL OF ALL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS, SUCH 

AS MILK AND MEAT, THAT YEAR WAS 32.6 BILLION. SO THE GRAND TOTAL 

VALUE OF JUST ONE YEAR OF PACIFIC NORTHWEST AGRI- BUSINESS IS 37 

BILLION. OMITTING SUCH LARGE SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS FROM YOUR 

DRAFT EIS FLAWS IT 30 MUCH THAT IT BECOMES TOTALLY USELESS A3 A 

3.2.6.3 

DOCUMENT FOR NAMING RATIONAL DECISIONS. THE NUMBER OF SUCH 

OMISSIONS MAKES YOUR DRAFT EIS HIGHLY SUSPECT AND THEREFORE. NOT 

CREDIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. 

3.2.6.3 

THE U.S. D.O.E. WARNED THEN TOO LATE THAT THEIR WATER WAS 

WHERE IN YOUR WORK ARE THE OTHER VALUES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER?

aw 


JUL 1 A 1986 

WM DIVISION 

me 


JUL 1 4 1986 

0659 

WM DIVISION 

m 

DEFENSE WASTE DEIS 

PAGE S 

DEFENSE WASTE DEIS PAGE 6' 

Co 

ko 

YOU HAVE FAILED TO INCLUDE THE ENORMOUS COSTS OF A POSSIBLE LOSS 

OF SHIPPING IF EXPORTS DRVED UP AND THE COSTS TO HUNDREDS OF 

INDUSTRIES OF LOSING THE RIVER AS A SOURCE OF WATER FOR THEIR 

3.2.6.1 MANUFACTURING PROCESSES. RECREATION, INCLUDING LEISURE ACTIVI- 

TIES ON THE RIVER SUCH AS BOATING, FISHING, AND WINO-SURFING, 

SUPPORTS MANY SMALL BUSINESSES AND PROVIDES THOUSANDS OF JOBS. 

YET NO WHERE IN YOUR DRAFT EIS DO I FIND ANY MENTION OF THE 

POSSIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS TO TOWNS ALONG THE RIVER IF VACATIONERS 

FAILED TO VISIT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE RIVER WAS RADIOACTIVE. 

TOURISM NOT ONLY PROVIDES AN ANNUAL CYCLICAL INCOME TO OUR CITY 

AND TO THE REGION BUT ALSO EDUCATES BUSINESSPEOPLE ABOUT OUR 

SPLENDID ENVIRONMENT. THEY KNOW THAT BEING ABLE TO WORK IN A 

o 

3.2.6.8 CITY THAT SITS ASTRIDE THE CLEAN WILLAMETTE AND COLUMBIA RIVERS, 

p /^ 

AND WHICH IS ONLY ONE HOUR BY CAR FROM THE OCEAN AND THE MOUN- 

TAINS, CAN SERVE AS A MAGNET TO ATTRACT AND KEEP A SKILLED AND 

EDUCATED WORK FORCE. YET NO WHERE IN YOUR DRAFT DO I FIND ANY 

ATTENTION TO THE POSSIBLE COSTS OF LOSING THESE VALUABLE DRAWING 

CARDS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND NEW JOBS. 

MY .SECOND MAJOR POINT IS THAT YOUR DRAFT EIS IS BO FLAWED THAT IT 

MUST BE TOTALLY REJECTED AS A CREDIBLE DOCUMENT. THE .DRAFT FAILS 

TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM .REQUIREMENTS OF AM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT REGARDING CONTENT SCOPE AND ACCURACY. ALSO. THE 

2 .3. 2 . 10 

EVALUATION PROCESS FOR THIS EIS WAS NOT IMPARTIAL. 

THEREFORE, I SUBMIT THAT YOU HAVE NOT YET PERFORMED AN EIS AND 

THAT YOU SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO START OVER. 

THE DRAFT FAILS TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING MAJOR ITEMS. THERE 13 

NO ALTERNATE SITE SELECTION, NO ALTERNATE "IN-PLACE •' DISPOSAL 

2.3.1.12 

PLAN FOR LOW-LEVEL WASTE. NO IDENTIFICATION OF THE SPEED OF 

2 ] 

MOVEMENT OF EXISTING RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION TO THE COLUMBIA RIVER. .3. 1.2 

AND ND INFORMATION ON THE RADIOACTIVE TOXICITY OF THAT EXISTING 

POLLUTION. THIS COMPLETE OMISSION OF ALTERNATIVES MEANS THE 

DRAFT FAILS ONE OF THE MOST BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF AN ENVIRON- 

MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT... THE PRESENTATION OF A FULL RANGE OF 

PRACTICAL OPTIONS TO DO WHAT THE PROPOSING CORPORATION OR AGENCY 

WANTS TO DO BUT IN DIFFERENT WAYS OR LOCATIONS MORE ACCEPTABLE TO 

THE PUBLIC. 

THE CRAFT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING MAJOR ERRORS: IT FAILS TO 

RECOGNIZE LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES OR IMPACTS. IT ONLY 

2.3.1.2 

PRESENTS THE IMMEDIATE AND SHORT-RUN COSTS OF A NARROWLY-DEFINED 

PLAN. IT FAILS TO SHOW MAJOR GEOLOGIC FAULTS UNDERLYING THE 

PROPOSED SITE. IT FAILS TO SUPPLY THE BASIC DATA ON THE PROBLEM 

...THE AMOUNT. RADIATION LEVEL AND LOCATIONS OF ALL DEFENSE WASTE 

AT HANFORD. IT FAILS TO $HOW FUTURE WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOS- 

AL. YOU SIMPLY MUST DO MORE THAN THROW DIRT OVER IT IN OUR 

BACKYARD. OUR RIVER SYSTEM IS NOT A BOX OF BITTY-LITTERI 

THE EVALUATION PROCESS OF THE DRAFT FAILS IN THAT THERE ARE NO

w3 

aim 059 

RECENED DOE-RL 

JUL S 406 eoSq 

V M VISION 


IMPARTIAL EXPERT REVIEWS. WHERE ARE THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION$ 

2 . `Q . 2.9 BY COMPETENT TECHNICAL PR05MSIONALS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF 

I 

2.3.2.9 

IO 2.5 .5 , J 

cz) 

2.4.1.5 

SCIENCES, THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. THE U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY. AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION? 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.. THIS IS A NATIONAL ISSUE AND SHOULD BE 

DEALT WITH AS SUCH BY THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC. 

GEOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL. AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCIES. 

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUING TO LET DOE 

.PROCEED 

INDEPENDENTLY. FOR WITH THIS DRAFT DOE HAS AGAIN PROVEN 

ITSELF INCOMPETENT. TO DO THE WORK. 

pY THIRD MAJOR POINT INVOLVES THE LACK OF A COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC 

INVOLVEMENT PROCESS FOR OREGON. AFTER YOU PUT IMMENSE QUANTITIES 

OF ATOMIC BOMB WASTE NEXT. TO OUR RIVER OVER A SPAN OF MORE THAN 

40 YEARS. WE DESERVE MUCH MOFF. THAN ONE DAY IN WHICH TO VOICE OUR 

DISSENT OF YOUR PROCESS AND TO REBUKE YOUR INSUFFICIENT ATTENTION 

TO DETAIL. 

DEFENSE WASTE DEIS 

CONGRESSMAN RON WYDEN. 

RECEiYE7. DOE-RL 

Jul-1410 0051 

WMDIVISION 

PAGE B 

I BELIEVE THIS IS THE LEAST THAT PORTLANDERS AND THEIR FELLOW 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST CITIZEN$ HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT FROM THEIR 

LEADERS, THEIR GOVERNMENT AND FROM THE AGENCIES WHICH SERVE THEN. 

FINALLY, PORTLANDERS HAVE A RIGHT TO . KNOW THE WARES AND QUALIFS- 

2.3.1.12 

..CATIONS OF THE AUTHORS AND REVIEWERS OF ANY FUTURE REPORTS THAT 

CAN AFFECT THEIR LIVES IN . SUCH A MAJOR WAY. THE DRAFT ASKS US TO 

ASSUME MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES AS CITIZENS. CAN YOU NOT FIND 

COMPETENT PROFE55IONALS WHO WILL PUT THEIR NAMES ON THE COVER OF 

YOUR REPORTS AND ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR CONCLUSIONS? 

THANK YOU. 

2.4.1.1 

THEREFORE, I OBJECT IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS TO THIS 

$NODDY PIECE OF WORK THAT YOU ALLEGE TO BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT. AND I CALL FOR COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION 

WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE ENTIRE HANFORD COMPLEX TO MEET LEGAL AND 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS OF COMMERCIAL U. S. REACTORS 

AND HAZARDOUS WASTES. IT IS VITAL THAT HANFORD BE REQUIRED TO 

MEET ALL FEDERAL AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. AS PROPOSED BY

El 

i 1 1 

The OS ME moat ow0 up to the problems created by 40 year. 

iE;;EIVED DOE-RL 

JUL 14 1986 

WM DIVISION 66/ 6 

TESTIMONY OF 

DAN SALTZMAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN, 

OREGON HANFORD ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

of improper storage of military waste at Hanford. 

Heeding between the lines of the draft environmental impact 

statement (DHSS) there is a consistent suggestion that the 

"reference s cleanup alternative combines the "beet of all 

option. and provide. a practical level of long-term 

protection. That is a questionable assertion considering 

the significant quantity of high-level wastes (HIM) that 

Would be left in-place in aged and fatigued aingle-wall 

tank. under the reference alternative. 

3,3.3.1 

ON THE 

Many compelling reason. to remove all high-level wastes from 

tanks and trenches have been presented today. 

I-J 

HANFOHD MILITARY WASTE 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

duly Y 1905 

But lets consider probably the moat obvious condition that 

should eliminate the reference alternative from further 

consideration: The potential for massive flooding and 

erosion of the the 200 storage area--the home of the 

high-level waste tanks. 

The likelihood of massive flooding of the Columbia River 

Basin dictates that all HLN wastes nuat be removed and 

entombed in a deep repository, not left in tanks a few feet 

beneath the surface or in trenches. 

PD555.00811 

- RECEIVED. DOE-RL 

JUL t? 

CDfe 

WMDIVISION 

3.5.6.7 

3,3.1.1 

PD555.007.1

M f.1 

r*, 1112 

Closer inspection of two of the department's own studies of 

flood potential sharply contradict the DEIS downplaying of 

flood risks. 

• [A) greet deal of re-working of sediment. -would occur 

within the Pasco Basin during a Bissoula flood... we 

conclude... that instability of at least the top meter 

of the [200 .real surface material would ocour...xe 

3.5.6.8 

In the BEIS summary is the statement: 

•The were is at an elevation that would not be reached 

by any reasonably postulated surface flood. The potential 

for flash flooding is remote.• 

Consider gmite likely that greater depth. of sediment 

would be involved in transportduring such a flood.,.- 

(2) 

So you see, the long-temn risk of a major :flood is a very 

real mm. A flood -- the mixing of water with waste -- 

This confidence is undermined by the department'. two prior 

reports. 

Se the worst possible scenario in terms of causing 

widespread contamination of our Columbia River and of our 

agricultural lands. 

tp 

N 

In a 1983 Battelle asse....t of military waste issue., the 

authoxa conclude: 

The department moat not belie its own commitment to clean up 

the problem by advocating, an unsound option that would 

'A major flood would be nature-indnced...(and] could 

leave part of that problem in unsafe tanks or trenches. 

3.5.6.8 

exhume the waste by innundation of both waste storage 

areas. The occurrence of such a...flocd is estimated 

to be...very likely in 10,000 year..' (1) 

All high-level waste., defined according -toEPA's 

definition, moat be cleaned up, glassified, and buried in an 

acceptable deep geologic repository. 

3.3.1.1 

The impacts of such major flood on the buried waste are 

O assessed in a 1985 Rest State/Battelle report. In that 

3.5.6.8 report, we are introduced to the specter of the greet 

Missoula flood and its threat of erosion of the 200 storage 

area. According to the report: 

M55SA03.2 


JUL14" OO(o0 

WM DIVISION 

Finally, let an echo the need for a tangible good faith 

gesture from the department that will show Northwest 

residents that we are an the verge of action with respect to 

cleaning up a 40 year old problem, Oct more studies, 

research and the like. RECEIVED DOE-RL 

PB555.009.3 

JUL 14 686 OQ bO 

VIM DIVISION 

2.2.1

.rte 

M 

OG1 

A fiscal year 1988 budget with funds for constructing a 

waste vitrification plant is but one sign of good faith. 

Coe ed is of Richard Betsey, M.D. regarding tM1e 

Hanford Defense Waste Environmental lepact Stateeenk 

[ a. Richartl Bel zey, a physician, a ember of the Portland Chapter of 

PM1 ysi ci anz for cf al Rnp pna ibf city antl a mambar of the Oregon Department 

of Energy r Hanford SO Advisory Committee. 

We are tired of promises that are not backed up with a 

conu.LtmenY of resource.. To talk about cleaning up the 

military waste on one hand, and to than request FY 198 7 

budget authorisation to construct additional surface ponds 

2 . 2. (^ 9 in which . to dump PUREX and N-Reactor racioactive liquids is 

a slap in the face to a region that has borne, for the sake 

11o 4 tile, First, to c vey sa go cif i awns' reaction to the Defense 

Waste EIS 01 expressed. during o public information ...tin, sponsored Jointly by 

the US a ..... . of Energy and the. Greg.. DOE Advf.... Cbgo III.. do Hanford. 

A number of people x concerned that the agencies and Individualsrezponsib- 

1e for the development e and d unageeeat of nuclear defense...pan. production 

had at plan..d for. the. safe and pertinent tlisposal of the ft. u volume of high 

level radioactive Pastas associated with their production. furthermore, they 

were concerned that an important question, which they thaught should have been 

..led forty years ago, still needs to be ..had today, 'Doss continued productionof 

plutonium for nuclear weapons at Hanford or anywhere else any site in 

this country inc or decrease the security of the people of this country?' 

2.5.5 

W 

of national defense, the risk. fzom. improper waste storage 

Door over forty year... 

PD555.008.4 


JUL 14 1996 

WM DIVISION 

Permanent and safe dis posal of the forty year accumulation of radioactive 

..at.argenerak ed during plutonium production and pDrifie ti.. fa r use i0 

eaponz is eOan.ti.1 because current 'temporary' storage sir ategiez, 

the 'No 6l sp meal Action- alternative, have been lead equate. There Is a high 

likelih oo d that these systems will continue to fail and it is avirtual 

ertai.ty that they will be unable to contain the high level nuclear .alms 

for the required tore. I cannot feel tonlidt a 

. that current and past 

activities and the knees r.eimactiv. rol e.... fro. the Hanford sit. have NOT 

at r wady been a 'ter eat to the :heal th of Gran,mxana. The tie Deparbent of 

Energy has tried to r s that M e'publfc health antl Oaf efy of 

individuals in the region have not been compromised but sa.. authorities 

have questi oned the assumptions on which their judgment I. based. In 

wading this environmental impact statement I am particularly struck by the 

inadequacy of infor ma tion about potential biologic effects of the 

alternatives for permanent tlisposal of radioactive Pastes resulting from 

plot eni um production at Nanf Ord. Consequently, the sl ateant is seriously 

fl ... d and should be expanded antl corrected before any further action is 

Considered. 

2.2.1 

3.3.1.1 

2.5.5 

REFERENCES 

(1) 

(2) 

Battelle Pacific NorthwestLaboratory. A........t of 

Ein le-Shell Tank Residual LS maid Iasssesat^pr 

te, Naeh n ton. Tune 9 

D E Contract r -AC 

ALO ..830. 

Battelle Pacific NorthwestLaboratory,Rent State Univarsity. 

Erosion Potential .from Nieaoula Floods in the 

Pasco Basin as m ton, Dcce et, OE orttzact 

D -AC -]bHL0 ludo. 

RECEIVED DOE-R IL 

JUL141996 ob66 

An expert panel [ netl with the long-term management of commercial 

.clear wastes r ended that the sa fest method would. be disposal In a dee p . 

geologic repository % This acs. z ea to he the safest Pay to deal with 

radioactive waste produced d 1 g the production of plutonium for nu leap 

capons. I bel that m 1 and disposal of all high level clear Paste 

fros the Hanford site and its storage a deep geologic repository Ss khB 

safest and most reassuring of the offered options.The engineering -solutions 

proposed in the 'En-Place Stabili.ati. and-Reference- alternatives involve 

unproven, technology which will have to ma intain its integrity for a 

thousands of years if it is 0pro tect the environment and proximal populations. 

This is unprecedented and it is likely that the technology will, 

or later, fail. What will be the impact on the people and the economy 

oe to 'region when high level radioactive .mast.% get into our wa ter and into 

the food chain] Will the c ..try's population, at that ties, be willing to 

invest their resources to deal with What let th en, only a regional problem? 

3.3.1.1 

PD555.009.1 

WM DIVISION 

In dealing with the heal th and safety of people in this region it is 

RECEPotJ DOE-RL 

Def.oEls - 719,86 Page d 

JUL 1.4 06 

90 

WM DIVISION

s 7 ., . a 0 41 9 7 

MOM K. 

ktk vc,i M1.ERL 

JUL 1 A SN D(p^2 

WM OIVi510N 

p 

'. =tr µµ le-1-4 iC '?fee ;r 

:fiicult to think about permanent disposal of these high level nuclear LA e¢dT6Q 

2.2.1 d pp[ A"^dTA 

wastes in cost-eifective terms. To think about sa y ing other people's money 

EXcL. wV r ^kE 

at the cost of potential health hazards to this region is very difficult. A NStGEAR AR, 

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. ê J 

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 

recent political des ded about the second geologic repository, that the F` n nptaraN F A bFFrn 

fir/SN^RE.T'3'^diA7/aA/ 

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 

! $ÈRKrivC C4.all• S An 

and would rather put 

it where no one lives, out here in the He st. He 

F°R 'Y/,6 mu NG T dny A.rd 76E __ 

(: y--To.-(n T ^ d° R N' 

also know that Hanford and the other sites being considered for a deep . - 

geologic repository were chosen because people in the rest of the country 

AeRS .Aiks 2 A REAS T N

3 ^ a 

4 9 a 

DI 

OG3 

V v 

•F 

c 

N 

v 

Ln v-+ C 

0 OU 

0 c; 

V 


JUL 14 1986 

WM DIVISION bd bl u (y 10 1986 

U.S. rt e a .^ [ ¢ryy 

f+apFo( f+¢nringsa Por +(w;.d 

3076 

t^Q. NE -36t` ave,. 

!Pl 

Qo 

k kall OR 47z12 

/'11 

A^ 

(^ 

VOOd. 0.'F TQYn UOn. 1_\^ n0.'Mf 1S RJssel\ 1'(4Q'QY. Zm.. 

Faorreawner her¢ ;p Por }land,, o-pA, lwv¢ f; veJ.îp Yl.e 

Ga\u..b:a River ra^;u.. {y 10 yg wri. 

j{F.n^ 7cu ^.,r '}4¢ oôr }uvs. sy +v cow^w.er ar. `K.a PreP,Y( 

-6 56,t r xucle.r um.s}e •a/+- V+o-•.^r'cl. 

My c'—J'/ f,.. a'8' T "qc st rq+^rn.d Fro {wa m\loh 

wo-s' a.dêrùa+e un^ aF{en cowtrdcctory . ^„ \e1Y eY cfowj' 

`l4.ink `floe overns.en} ar' n¢..x aped:... rani\y kn P,w wA { 

pr haw mu -}u+el[ 't" reoele. And worse %ey .7 not" 

k aw k ow -6 Han Ile %,;s 47 ( F ate ;de f UJQ 

atndergjxnd_ {5-a w. tcri¢..JLs tl. f > siFpl I, 54 .+'la+. 

ex;'itrQ ` here, 'Tb.;s rw;SRS tLe 

issue, of ia

a 

3.4.3.1 

2.1.1 

3.3.1.1 


JUL 1 4 M pdb0' 

063 

WMDIVI $^ ON P' 3 

ur;4yL.T.d;a} iw . haznrc(s, h1e h>d .Wr ia,s{s .F' r cîadiow 

as1a.{;: jiGe cowsvR ^rncaf 

a». o-to;,1t-+ c Jrk 6 Role, e, s;.^.^+iy de>;7i. iC>t 

GCC;c\ew`5 

LL 

we..\d. .cccr. 

-11we leroac(er issue ,5 ((e ( •ducd o x wuc(e.f, tw.s{-e wIeick 

eer Po.\.rd{ec 't4.c er.lalea.. X 5-6rr ff. -T,, V..0E. .«d Arne 

r• ¢ne;es .,,,a sk- ..d lress `f(.e ;sswe aF redvoi w=.s{t 

2.5.6 .e skew zF ser..LXear akrgts i e4K!raffy 

ee , er y y .r {xec^ `Yne...,ae e:'.duce n^c6.. 

5{ 

Merl t S+it lir-a.. wa. seem {'o.. 

We. Lea' wave .. wask-_ 40TT A- jgaSL't'•r^; Ir 

2.5.6 (11-V uAi dL gl,5e Nn k iks Ekaa,^rd. {i c;1e(y 

pt 01oSad. 

We also feel each action in the disposal process must not preclude further 

actions which might be desireabie for other aspects of the entire system. Furthermore, 

an adequate tracer and monitoring system should be established which should 

extend into the postclpsure period for a long time. 

One of our concerns is that the U.S. DOE must use the same environmental 

standards as the Nuclear Waste Policy Act intended and not bypass them under the 

Atomic Energy Act. Defense waste standards should comply with state and federal 

requirements to assure protection of .groundwater quality. 

League members agree that the solution should be as cost effective as passible, 

but the cast issue should not determine the choice of the disposal alternative. In 

that regard, we are gravely concerned about the tone of the draft EIS which seems 

biased against the geologic disposal alternative due to cost. 

In reviewing the draft EIS. and co mm ents of others, we concur with the states' 

of Oregon and Washington , requesting more information an the four alternatives proposed 

and inclusion of discussin g of the other 23 disposal methods not discussed. 

For example. Washington's Department of Social and Health Services Office of 

Radiation Protection in its draft review paper questions the reliability of the 

3.3.4.2 

2.4.1.1 

2.2.4 

3.3.1.2 

3.3.5.2

111: 

64 My 

League of Women Voters of Oregonduly 10, 1906 Page 2 006`( 

Testimony before V.S. DOE, Portland, OR 

Re: Draft EIS Disposal of Hanford Defense Waste 

multi-layer protective barrier system for the shallow burial sites. The concern 

is with water intrusion due to increased irrigation in the future or change in 

the water level of the Columbia River Basin from the removal of dams, or weather 

pattern changes such as an arid spell killing the vegetation on the barrier and 

wind removing the soil. Also, consider the tiny ant. Remember the song, 'Whoops, 

3 .5.1. 10 1 

there goes another rubber tree plant?" The Washington agency points out that 

already in two different locations in the 200 Area harvester ants and termites 

have burrowed into waste and resurfaced radioactivity. 

06.b(S^ 

Aid f9P6 

to 

V 

3.5.6.40 

More data needs to be collected concerning groundwater flow and groundwater 

contamination risks due to activities over the very long term, such as seismic 

events, flooding, climatic changes, drilling far gas and other resources, and 

increased human and animal activity. 

We have concerns about the coordination of all facets of transportation of 

3 .4.2.24 wastes; such as lines of authority, responsibility, procedures, enforcement of 

regulations, routes, emergency procedures, funding of equipment, training of 

personnel, safety of equipment, enforcement of security measures, emergency 

stations, and risks due to hazardous weather, to mention same. 

The League of Women Voters has a deep concern over the recent decision to 

abandon the search for a second repository in the East. We feel it may "color" 

the decision to stabilize . in place the defense wastes at Hanford rather than 

removal to a repository. It could have a profound Influence on the decision to site 

3 . 3. 2. 1 the commerci al repository at Hanford. It could affect the design and size of the 

co mm ercial repository due to co mm ingling It is imperative that all of the ongoing 

production activit y s at Hanford producing wastes, as well as the "con-retrievable- 

low level, transuranic, and hazardous chemical wastes on the site 

be factored into the system and should be thoroughly discussed in an EIS. 

Furthermore, the E IS must address the impact permanent waste disposal at 

Hanford would have an the cultural activities of the Yakima Indian Nation and the 

2 . 4 . 2 . 1 other two affected tribes. 

2 .2.1 

Finally, the League of Women Voters of Oregon believes it is the responsibility 

of the federal government to take all the time, testing, resources, expertise, and 

discussion necessary to do the job right, because the social, environmental, and 

economic well-being of the region is at stake. The people of Oregon want to be 

assured that our agricultural, recreational, and industrial economy will continue 

to flourish- RECEWFL) DCE-RL 

Kristine Hudson, Presidenti UL 1 4 1986 

Portland, a97221 OR 

WMDIVISION 

Norma dean Gerund 

-Imalloia 

Re, . 

Mtn rBlvdk Force 


c 

yQi n. rG:^t ?' A 

c ^/`pt 

G2.6^ 

t c[*îw^Y 2.5.6 

% 

yrsgA>

S,uir iup+f +e Y) ........ aen .... Yn l up in lM aY) Jaa>+ 6Naf - 

!ias e6g N 4 0 mr>eulwquga 84% vi olg uieaa¢a q plo+p*H' punm+w fu+ 

ay ) 1. upa4) llu4lNi uC] 

r a.w} YI. "I..... tYnl ...... r Pe 1 e4Y 1 {1 

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 !^ 

w a u egppp u! pone+6Rryx a ul Puea a+4> w pui a!1 'fOlala+etl a P1 aP (1 I ^. ^" 

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 - - 

D aalws pavi NH se su+) tl X3ilpd .ya A.Paa aaya wpua ep 

>O'•'^p(r *Yaaia'?S 

iunin { e ya ul maa.f un aw 

° °^ a)a+w a+Y.. . .. pu 1 1P Y Ill a +B 4a -III + i. 'YPY - ^ ie .-a ap Jib a4a 

M 

Pe4a ++q I rp a Pp a ry Ba.}v q jgna Y0111'u acne 13 

ii NnY DJ d-w. ' t' rv a.p a >y q+¢Yd, 

Yp »nyr ayy % vlvp pv 

i P ua vu Iwc)um i b a • > a al q ] up i Y 11 a Lue A a 

lo p a+.w e a ISM9+r6 Dnad:ay ' pyy v J VY.Yd Pvra VDrmV Ypf YI' % PDDj 

T °. T i Z 

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 % 

:b0 ayA 'q... ...lams -yaln puaeur 

a PIV 

paiu0a .1 n P+B>ueH iw 11...ì0 

D % o!YZ 'tYVJD YnD .Tgbrpyua 5moti YDY} oyYDpm janaf 

a.aa+w algnz uvlll! w Zt + B aw Uapl.. ....Y3 iv • aa.0 . Jepu(L. 

nibJq aopVY Hasg % pYPy ft. Y46 Y/ YPp. aYVYS vpybvpyppm 

,. 

'p' .....H ..l' 

'n P--+ -P 11I l Yn .. i a Ry 9a..... yl ep J>... N p}, 

•DYn>x i fir^%val 9ryDaY1v 'M1DyJ: YM 

pay aP * DPa Pv V YDf Yv Y % p odd o 

a T"W Pl P 4'H 

P v Pep a .u¢N a P a.ya P1.11 cue am 

a.6.4a upa..::V a4 rvP+•r'w^QfiP]. Y^'Dm Dr/1 

>p iup}TdYnv!p7, Vf'b1 

Yil eYY . 4> . a9 i.+tl [uliwa ..,I ...... 

'-H LTiZ°^ 

lja+ 

^J^ a)9 2 /r{'D'YrgypO(/B 1ra'r(Y sY(/ •atDD aYD PYDjvpH 

nu9 >c Id a .a4 1 I- p Yl l gna 4. 1.. ..P r' q 

'. a 

J^ âapmq E prary o % pym ayY fivo vYopvaY e;wYYadiax 

av> a uW pu+u un a.. +p } ..... + ..luean..p Pe P{ LtepN - Wl 

.y iva+a vi fu l p +0i P a it -Pa eu uwauN qa Ba [ul.+.w 

:I+ay L 1 } p Ya P ± f , iuq P...PINBY ... P..N 

•^D^âY!. 

P,veuaH a CSii Ya t o wn!"'4a a+LaI.. ..+.gale ...... ^ ^v aHY fD ^ ^^ rrp Papaa a? PTn yD YanD'.n.Y 

i rvam Y%D 

Ba{B 

1 mDVM n vaEdB ao- o Pm % 1:iv a 

u aNal a +eya a.4i pue A l -M 'arn 

0461 .Ya Yi ¢+41 

Y( pi m c"'v YamOE^Yp 

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 

D1v1Î S'p DYVapnav YD ]dvam 

Y°:lo°° 6q Vv, ^- YJVap o ° p^Ypq ay(w.r. • agpnb 

u ! pv: 

' âvv ply 

nli]+p !Ga+ {,] aa: n] uv a li . 'i'S atul 1. a.ya n. x .p 

Ypaxu atly f vayP/ ay w v; Y 

+a4i 

maY 3 H -WV nyx 

.ae y + {v a.B] AA..ma.0 a p.tpnf .9 . le pH 

11 P, 

up a[uf4awR Iv 41 1 4 .4a 1.4a q ( .Y.ln ul f+elJ ei d.e4. ! PN 

•jT aNy %°+P 

byaymq Tppn ayy yy}a 

LOV âue:/wmj â .A v 

.b -Wa1 VY 11.1 

0 P.. aany unpf .Y: ur s .nlN+n } ......HI UI .. .Zll.1 d puorry Pa... a 

aq prnpyD {ry)•lfjyJ >^^Z 

YD w ar(a TTp f TDDIp ory avva.DO wN dmp 4 

nr[ 

E ° Z Z . e t 

..q fey .lav tl Y. ip Yal . Y y l •119na ya pi aiN ii. 

Ppp PayY P Yd Dzk J' D 

0 +4 -610". Peanea en+4 a ruvanle eanpO+a 

iV! Pa q a4 P -w flJ 

Iva faaB{{a a.Aiaeu3 Ip 'pay0yavaE aYp ". aaJapm Ypa(-.inv ao' yenaY a!Pp a nalgary ppjD L 

îtli0 . 4a +an.u.M w. ri+.. •YO V! ).41 .1 .145 ya1 . ' a al q.Ja a41 

R I lHI aJVHP VDE p Dp m Dyj 9p DY ]'jyjD pj'D^j}.rry yYp vYDVPnA' jR'Y10 

! 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. 

1]++)a. 

E ° T ° Z 

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 ' 

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 

rYpan ltl .4a anB1 I ntl r 

dfiiaT agvy yotl YY YIna 

' 'a! a aai+ s.19¢+tl .a+N LIV.^. pa .yi Nlvf+pa-.i 

7,.p am fe1 n Jr Ps 1'.' In. P•ddf VD ary afipryMb 

ru p cn l a 5.41 aiS Ba, ..a Y ] ( F w SN9 e41 Puv •NJiB+d 

rvVJ jjo pynDVa 1rym p0 YDBpJ jDD3 ayy VD paypaauAabâ)n 

auve.pm unp . p } w lu pi... s... .ulPetu .g Ba &Y1.[ . ,.p.= 

Pryovm aDpyy jp ppD¢ ypory eaYDVm janaj-ybyy aVY SIry.YPY 

- oavD frryp arty ary am pyn pyo •vu;rym Na'I'mv janaY-m% 

.Pfe. At.NH.ip.. q i.0 •ovvyyDU aVT jP TY^ °°i' J' fiPDaa'ro aivYS vDi'bu!4vpff .aivv5 

a4a ♦ +.a a+a.H •a P a + w P3 'H • .vf ZHb( Y( •uplaanPVad fY. PJawH 

.vp +aa anN fu .'aaap a4> .g Pln pw NN a.+naza N.w' -ae41. 

:yajjDH •YN 

pue rpemuu Al pa.+..avid .! A[.N3 +. • ata0 .4 1 1.4a ) Lqn. :, 

NOIHIM1I0 {VI°fl 

1 00 ZZ96. fDa b!n'w'pl4 'P!Î'Y+'!x 

.Y.l.a.e] eaa..d NadveM +NIanN ',RIYn. 3 ^^t lnf ass --u D a 

sr.lp a lala.H . 4 a 1r•++a+ae+ i Poi Neap .I-+w] .l .NU 11. ^ aalA3D wpP Wv DWvi' x 

.. N-7%Q ^'.^f_3^^7iJ. 1rrYD,r3 t• rva »yH.¢ •s 'n 'sc3NaYr•x »n 

NOISNIOMIM 996t °si Î n. - 

.....laa.q 

L 900 9B9 e t ^nr a. aop . Y i.0 

tY l4.NYp ASYUBiY•M 

Jai -et +mf 

] 3 i p ....... • >YO .4a Aue. ! aul 'yDDlp vryabvH "v 

l2!•30^ a3AI3D3tl - 

Ila s w6 -m £a E' 

co 

m 

4190 990

9- n, a 

y 

067 

M& 

E D ID 

t? Indeed, it the 5 0 viet• wina to contaminate our lead l.wuNilTAYmy 

uwe would call it an acs of roes 

y ♦ ' 

uFen 1 OPalowf and al.lain' of Elf.. iiae y E,puL'T Past 

radioactiv! reluu. fret Hanford , . Plutonium, pro duction L.Clubmat 

2.5.5 ':%o hue fFelNd ae eF! têwht of YHet Yi el 9H oat-Y}t }npY 

about Hanford. The Ilept. of EnvfY'+ cloak of.......Htdoeeepot 

diminish my Cf dcern, aimhc j .11y Yith t.i} a.YNtafarY }f faCD^t e+ 

Uncluaitnd Controfwd thelear lwfwa l and .m .te ll byl;mn d f, x flg .f- 

Cast. a1 EnegY. 

1 net content - OG!Fr 

that the 0.". of EnerlY rim Elḍ OT16 is 

radiation . standard. ter Hanford, but monitor.. itself .no s h. NEE_at.d 

to voluntarily rlPart at BaCla} rwlaaaae ai rldlatlbn. 

I a w n rmuUr.d b y the Sept.. of Eiariiii liident 

. 1 . 3 a, ... 1!tla n to red CYmm a ala i nuclear fuel: such as tha;(t4:ba ' 

2 atarld the ra.aaltarY.f.A r rowA Ito PlYta nl wfatraattan:PraC}.a.- 

SurNY..aFi. ui 11 .wean the PURE% Alen[ and the L.", _'L.QVO.r 

Ee.aration slant yes will run her and M1ard Ior want' yeaef '

f 0 5 

068 • i1 


JUL 18 1986 do67 

FA 

O 3. 

3 

national nucieer damp. 

WM DIVISION 

A cur s tiny of the history of nuclear activities at 

Hanfor d shows that review progre t .... d safe and esFlOnsi ble 

handling of that has been slow, punctuated rmy failed 

tech nology, a cid ants, cover-ups and most recently a blatent 

disregard for t the requa ants of the Nuclear Was to Policy 

Act w ich requires construction of a ..o..d M1i gh-level 

geologic rep o.. tvey. 

Further evidence of "business usual" at Hanford _ 

all ..vi ous. For ti a ample, at the DOE Seattle workshop o . 

defense waste gracedi ng this hearing, a reprasentati — rrom 

Battelle, a DOE nt' attar, w 

an 

par ticipating the 

Env :al impacts Working oGroup glicly retl 

3.5.4.8 question s"cn-_ ing grtiunduat er trans part of radionuclides to 

the Colmb Columbia n He stated that there would be n impacts 

of c s if all he in question flawed into thet 

Columbi arR iv nrdue to the waste capacity to d"uts the 

.ate This eo:p art" w is roborated in ossin o 5..4.3 5 

- 

of the DEIS which addresses clong-term impacts of the No 

Disposal option. 

The belief by DOE and its contractors that virtually n 

5. heal on effect. wdala d cu 

under a re failure condition. 

2. 5 ht e of the Columbia R . capacity to dilute paste only. 

onfirms the public's fears eabout the intent and capability 

of the agency to responsibily address the hazards of nuclear 

waste. 

2 

The DOE hasbudgeted $5 million dollars for the current 

year for Hanford public relations.Ir dnically, previous 

5 . 5 public ralati dos .activity which attempted to allay public 

. condo n has duly intensified concern and angered citizens. 

No., well informed citizens have learned from experience to 

question every statement and every action taken by DOE and 

Its contractor s. 

Th' . nal all 

Must 

act ear rite programs 

al rem bility g•u lie i only ubl 

a path " to address p 

2.3.2.9 parlor[ 

concern and distrust is with full and independent' technical 

and or .... mmatic reef ew. The casts of ..on state or agency 

oversight of the Defense Waste program 'must be assumed by the 

DOE Just as affected states and Indian tribes funded 

under the Nucl car Waste Policy Act. 

2.5 .5 

Continuation of the Defense Waste and other nuclear 

waste programs reliant upon current DOE methods of mollifying 

legitmate c a heinous breach of responsibility to 

ins citizens nand laws of the United States. 

Surely, the history of failed programs and proJects, and 

the degradation of the environment will continue unchanged 

until a....itmenx a made by the DOE to the discovery and 

2.5.5 

full di .closure of it. truths ing ucea tr 

ncI udi I the time and fund. - tuallycenecessary for safe sand 

permanent Ssol ati on. 

ôr• 

.h^ 05}_ 

we. S ♦• 

S1¢T'r0. C.^ u 

lsifa rneko.ze ov".` 

Sea+rle 1 ". 981 2 

11 

RECEIVED CCE-RL 

JUL 18 im eat 

WM DIVISION

$'a 

s 

r3 - 4 i 

S 

+ 'n 0 ^_1a 

e d ^-k 0 

Ea 

069 

069 

CD 

F—g 

RECEIVED 286 

6. 

JUL i U 1986 604A 

WM DIVISION 

FAGLI E O p %=k1EN V0'IEHS OP WASHINGTON 

IIINuonly l'Y.\TA Ism.Amba'rnesr aFAT1i8 N'aaH IXnION 9911] n1y .. 

Comments on the U. S. Department of Defense 

Draft Environmental Impact $Cut eme.t on Defense Waste 

July 15, 1986 

I an Ruth Coffin, President of the League of Women Voters of 

Washington. Our comments are on the subject EIS and on the 

overall waste disposal process entrusted to the Department of 

Energy. 

The League of Women Voters has benefited from a close and 

cooperative relationship . with the Washington State Nuclear Waste 

Board, the Office of Nuclear Waste Management, and the Nuclear 

Waste Advisory Council on which two of our members serve. We 

have also observed or participated in a variety of meetings and 

workshops relevant to defense waste and/or waste management at 

Hanford. We generally defer to and concur with the comments 

under preparation by the Nuclear Waste Board and undergoing 

extensive coordination within the state prior to the August 9th 

deadline for public Comment. While we recognize and expect that 

those draft review comments may be further refined, v e are most 

appreciative of the openness of our stare officials in 

circulating their issue analysis at public meetings throughout 

the state and for their receptivity to citizen viewpoints. 

One characteristic of the State of Washington's approach we wish 

you would emulate is an avoidance of the project-specific or 

programmatic app ... Ch to complex technical and policy issues 

which are frequently inextricably interrelated, .irrespective of 

the class of waste.. The general public really cannot cope well 

1 .1.1 with your compartmentalization of the issues. Likewise. some 

4 

failure to provide non - technical explanations, questions and 

n vex . and ocher tools gulch the nos-expert citizen ham the 

[!.e and fee It is to romprehand discourages unders ta nding and 

participation in this very important question of public policy. 

sl_ 

RECEIVED DO E-RL 

dUL 18 1986 

Qdb9 

2 

VVfd DIVISION 

We of the League of Women Voters share the State of Washington's 

belief that thisprocess is ant the usual type of HIS review. We 

are emphatically not in the position of marshaling arguments 

against s major federal action. .Instead, we are all responsible 

p 

far helping you find ways co ensure through remedial measures and 2e 3. 2 . 12 

planning that Hanford defense wastes are disposed of safely and 

effectively. The League endorses the generally supportive stance 

of our state towards the USDOE's commitment to improve waste 

management at Hanford. In return, we urge you to cooperatively 

assist in meeting the program requirements of the Washington 

State team and, specifically, to anticipate and comply with the 

public's continuing need for timely, accurate and complete 

info] ma clan. 

With respect to the draft EIS, we have three major concerns to 

ezpce ss. 

(1) We urge you to revise the analysis in both scope and 

structure eo provide for ashe approach to an integrated 

3.3.5.8 

disposal strategy for both the radioactive and associated 

chemical wastes. The latter have not gotten the treatment their 

presence at Hanford and the hazards they present warrant. The 

State will outline in its review Comments an alternative 

technical concept for their handling. This concept should be 

Investigated by the USDOE. 

(2) We urge you to revise the analysis to expressly consider the 

technical Implications of presidential decisions: the first, to 

commingle defense wastes in a repository and the second, to 

Indefinitely postpone the se and reposito ry program and possible 

amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to increase tonnage 

limits. We share the concern that there may be an underlying 

2. 1 . 3 

assumption that the single eehell tank wastes are to be stabilized 

in place. Such an assumption has ramifications for the 

engineering desig n. and capacity of a deep repository. The State 

3.3.5.7 

of Washington questions if there is an sufficient volume of 

intact basalt in the Cohomset flow, and if the site may be 2. 1. 1

I 

1 

1 S 

O 

N 

069 

violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) million gallon or radioactive Waste Into the soil. It is against this 

MC 

RECEIVED CDE-RL 

JUL 18 1986 

040 

RECEIVED CIDE_RL 

WM ENVISION 

3 

Testimony of Senator Al Williamson The JUL 18 1988 00'/6 

Draft Environmental Impact Statementon 

Disposal of Hanford Defense Pasta 

_ WMDIVISION 

Seattle, Washington 

....liable in terms of geology and hydrology. If the State's 

2 . 1. 1 July 15, 1986 

concern proven warranted. site characterization would be 

inappropriate. From our vantage point, there 1s no question that 

this DEIS is the place to discuss these issues. It is also the 

Goan afternoon. My name fs Al Williams. I an the rhairmon of the 

Senate Energy and Utilities Committee in the state of Washington. I 

place to present and analyze the impact. of the alternative 

appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on the Draft 

approaches to post-closure monitoring is a deep repository. We 

2 . 1 .-/ 

also expect the USDOE to fully evaluate I. thin DEIS has the 

Environmental Impact Statement on the disposal of foulard defense 

alternatives for permanent defense waste disposal might interfere masts. 

with or prevent effective technical monitoring of a repository, 

particularly in the earlier past-closure years. 

Me existing defense Waste an the Danford reservation is the result of 

(3) For the USDOE to adequately respond to these two areas of some 40 years or military activity conducted In the name of national 

concern. it will be necessary to make major revisions in the 

technical concepts in this DEIS and accompanying references. 

aecurity. As a result of these activities, 340,000 curies of radioactive 

That, In turn, compels circulation of a revised DEIS and adequate 

Iodine Were released during 1945; 5,000 curies of Iodine 131 

opportunity for review and comment 

by affected states and tribes. 

were Intentionally released in 1949resulting in a plume 200 miles long 

as well as the general public. We believe that, while the 

and 40 miles Wide over parts or eastern Washington and ovegcn; and In 

present DEIS contains much useful information, it is defective in 

scope and analytical content. Unfortunately, its logic has given 1951, a failure in some filters caused the release of 49,000 curies of 

rise to the belief that a decision may have already been made to 

-dioiodine aver several months. The early 197es brought the moat 

stabilise wastes in place. If this 1a the "preferred 

Widely known accident at Hanford When it Was discovered that some of 

2 . 9 alternative". it has not been so Identified. If the Department 

3 3J . L 1 

in not forthcoming about that intent, it will be viewed as a 

the single-shell tanks bad failed and released a pproximately a half a 

2.3.2.2 

2.3.2.10 

historical background that the Draft Environmental impact statement on 

defense Waste east be analysed. Consequently. I commend efforts by the 2.3.2.12 

United States Department of Energy to clean up the defense waste 

problem at Perform. It is clear that some action must be taken. 2.2.1

^.^' 

0 7® 0170 

RECE VEU DOE-RL 

RECEIVEt7 DOE 

-RL 

- JUL 18 1986 

(AT 

- WNI 18 LM ION 

Page 2 WMDIVISION Page 3 

6070 

MDIVISION 

In 1982, Congreas enacted the Nuclear Warta Policy Act. The Policy Act already made Its decision about the disposal or the to 1s, the 

eatablishes a progr am for the deep geologic: dlslual of commercial 

aSngle-shell tanks.. 

high-level nuclear Waste. Me Act also allows the President to 

determine whether high-level-defense Waste x111 also be disposed of in 

I do not believe that Ys,-place stabilization of the xaete. I, the 

the commeroial repository. President Reagan, In Me spring of 1985, single-ahell tan s, should be e. pe,.At disposal option. At best, it 

.us the dominion to permit eemmlngling of defense and eeamerclel highmaybe 

a tempor ar y solution but it should not be the final decision. 3.3.2.1 

2.4.1.4 

level Waste in one repository. .The President's decision to .approve. The single-shell tanks are not safe for the permanent dispoaal of these 

commingling forged a link between cmamr.fal an d defense high-level. 

Wastes. MAY have leaked in the past; some allege that they continue 

waste disposal. 

to leak. These Wastes should be disposed Of 1s, a reposiEOry. the 

health and safety of future geneeatlom should not be sacrificed 

O 

W 

. , 

The licage between the commercial and defame Waste disposal programs bameae the coat of repository disposal say be greater than in-place 

Was further strengthened by the May 28 decision of Secretary Herrington stabilization. Safety, not econoaAim. must drive the disposal 2.2.3 

to postpone -indefinitely the site selection process for a second decision. 

repository. It appears tome t ha t the comercial repository progr am 

2. 1.10 

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 

final environmental a mWo.ent (EA) released on Hay 28th makes since the Nay 28 decision to "indefinitely postpone- the alto selection 

assumptions about the mount of defame mate that Would be co mmingled 

In a commercial repository. The EA assures that moats if not all, of 

Process for a second repository. I share the view that the 

Department's decision violatem the spirit and letter of the law as 

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 

Ss, not disposed of in a repository. The "indefinite postpoeeeent" of gun-shy about participating in the defense mate disposal process for 

the selection process for a second repository also appears to rely on fear that the Department say again engage In arbitrary and capricio us 

e 

2 . 5 . 5 

^f 

3. 3 . J . / 

this ass um ption Which my result in g reater pressure for in-place 

atabilizatiun of these xaa to. an es to not affect the capacity of the 

first repository Which In limit ed to 70.000 ietrie tom. SOLD of thee. 

factors lend credence to the belief t hat the Department Won in fact 

behavior. The state of Washington participated in goad faith in 

activities undertaken pursuant to the Nucle ar Waste Policy Act only to 

have the rug yanked out &m under us on Hay 28. My should We expect 

different treatment by. the Department In the defense Waste 

M,Iranmentml Impact Statement proem? As I have already mentioned,

070 070 

RECEIVED CAE-RL 


PeBe t 

JUL 18 M6 

JUL 18 IW6 

J6,10 

b Page 5 

YJM DIVISION 

WM DIVISION 

the appearance that a decision has already been made by the Department 

Environmental Impact Statement fails W may What that research and 

in favor of in-place stabilization of We existing defame Waste in the 

development should be or how long It will take to complete that 

single-shell 1-sks only adds to my ..i.e... 

process. 

1) 

C) 

A 

2 .3.2.1 

3 .3.5.4 

3.3.2.4 

2 .5.9 

2 .5.9 

I thick that the Draft EnViromental Impact Statement process may he 

peematura. Me draft document admit. that in the case of single-shell 

tack Wastes, "farther research and development Will be required to 

Verify dlapmail methods prior to a final decision or implementation." 

t. can m intelligent decision an a disposal method for aI.gle-.hell 

tack Waste be made When the necessary research and development data 

upon Which to bane a decision hoe not been conducted? If, as the Draft 

Environmental Impact StatemenI,. alleges, further data on retrieval 

methods Will be required .before a final decision can be made on the 

geologic disposal option, then Why are We .engaged In a process Which 

admittedly lacks the pertinent data upon Which to base a rational 

choice? Let'. obtain the relevant e.marab and development data needed 

to make a decision on disposal options before We Wake that decision 

rather than after. .This seen like a classic ca.. of putting the cart 

before the hares. - 

Me need for additional research and development Work also supports the 

argument that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is too narrow in 

its scope. That is, it should be more specific we to what Information 

will be needed to resolve certain disposal issues. Per example, mementioned 

amiler, the disposal of the wastes 30 the single-.hell tacks 

x111 require mate resesnh and development. However, the Draft 

Me Draft Environmental Impact Statement contends that defense Waste 

Will continue to be produced for 12 more years at Hanford. The draft 

should provide contingencie s Yor Waste production and examine a range 2.3.1.6 

of production acraceim. ghat if Waste production ceases In 6 years? 

20 years? 50. year.? ?hose possibilities should be addressed by the 

Draft Environmental Impact "Statement. The uncertainty surrounding 

future defene Waste production should me recognized and planned for 

With reali.ilc options. 

In comlmlon, the most Important point that I thick mast be made is 

that the Department needs to recognize the linkage between defense and 

maw.rclel waste disposal decisions. They are part of the sane 

problem. The cominglin, decision by the President cemented that link. 

Decisions in the couerclal Ed Woceaz can affect decisions in the 

defense Draft ETNiremantal Impact Statement process. Until this 

linkage Is recognized, the Department'm disposal program for high- 2,1.3 

level radioactive waste will offer Incomplete solutions to a nationwide 

problem. Partial solutions encourage di.trmt of the Department's 

analyse. and decisions. - The DepmrtmanCS credibility has been 2.5.5 

seriously ukcermineE by the postponement of the accord repository 

program. The defense waste program any suffer became of -this. 

f nzegmntly, I urge the Department to begin to restore Its credibility'

8 

Is 

Page6 

WH 


JUL 18 1986 

0070 

WM DIVISION 

RECElVE6 DOE-RL 

JUL 18 MB pOTI 

COMMENTS ON THE DEIS FOR DISPOSAL OF 

HANFORD DEFENSE NIGH-LEVEL, THU AND TAN, WASTES 

VJM DIVISION 

_ 

Seattle,. Washington, July 15. 1986 

071 

2. 5. j 

by aclmowit,ging the linkep between the cammereial and defense waste 

program. A commitment to arely. the lmpacta of the delay in the 

int repository program upon d a feve wemte disposal ph scald begin to 

alleviate the Department's credibility problem. Thank you. 

AW:dq-6 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Ruth F. Weiner 

Western Washington University 

Bellingham, WA 98226 

These comments refer only to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) in question, and relate only tangentially to any decisions on the 

commercial high-level radioactive waste (HLW) repository. Moreover, 

deficiencies and discrepancies in the DEIS beyond the major ones are not 

identified; I intend to submit nm,a detailed comments on the Appendices 

before the and of the comment period. Finally, these comments reflect alv 

awn views; they are net, to my knowledge, representative of the views of 

any agency, organization, institution, or public interest group, although I 

have submitted them to the Northwest Citizens' Forum on Defense Waste, of 

which I am a member. 1 have received no financial or logistical assistance 

in preparing these comments. 

O 

0 

O 

INTRODUCTION - 

=$ 

Nine U-238 in a plutonium production reactor is irradiated, both fis 

rh 

sion products and neutron activation products are present after irradia- 

O 

Lion. The process of isolating and purifying plutonium and fissile uranium 

(TI 

from this irradiated feel yields considerable quantity of chemical waste, 

d 

in solution form, which also contains a variety of radionuclides and which 

(D 

is. in part, highly radioactive. The process of plutonium production and 

=5 

purification was begun more than 40 years ago, when the chemistry of - T,I, 

radioactive materials was in its infancy, as was knowledge of groundwater y 

-pollution mechanisms and the radiochemistry of soils. In the absence of J 

any appropriate disposal means, very radioactive plutonium production waste 

was partially dewatered and stared in tanks, radiocesium and radiostrontium 

N 

were purified and encapsulated, less radioactive liquid was dispersed in 

C1 

the soil from cribi(.and low-level transuranic (THU) waste was stared or 

buried. Today, high-level waste is still stored in tanks, though these are 

now double-walled, adequately monitored tanks, and much low-level liquid 

waste is, unfortunately, , still dispersed from cribs into the soil or stored 

in ponds. None of these disposal methods, with the possible exception of 

ponds, has ever been considered permanent. 

N 

1

071 

M, 

O 

2.3.2.1 

SCOPE OF THE DEIS 


JUL 18 1986 061 

WM DIVISION 

The DEIS under consideration addresses the permanent disposal of this 

Waste. It is a bit odd that the issuance of the DEIS coincides with the 

issuance of the final envirom ental assessnts re for characterization of the 

first commercial PLAN repository. This schedule brings the DEIS to the 

public at the height of the controversy over siting the repository and has 

resulted in understandable public Confusion over the two issues. It would 

be, prudent for WE to address the timing of this document in the Final EIS 

on Defense Waste. In fact, this DEIS is independent of the repository 

siting decision (except in one aspect, which will be discussed below): the 

tank waste, TRU waste and contaminated soil at Hanford must eventually be 

treated for permanent disposal no matter where the commercial re pay itory is 

put or when the commercial repository begins to accept waste. 

There is also sane confusion about the relationship of this DEIS to 

the recently released General Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled 

-f Nuclear Waste: Department of Energy's Transuranic Waste Disposal Plan 

3.1.3.7 X.ses Revision- (GAO/RCEO-86-90) which states (p. 18) that the DOE has not 

fully addressed 81% of the defense TRU waste. Since this GAO report was 

issued at the save Lire as this DEIS, and this DEIS is not cited in the 

report, one might assume that the DEIS Was not included in the documents 

reviewed by GAO. The impression remains, however, that the DEIS does not 

include a substantial fraction of the TRU defense waste at Hanford. Is all 

defense waste included in the DEIS? If any is not included, it should he 

incorporated into the final EIS. Since there were no scoping hearings at 

which this paint could be raised, it oust be addressed at some point. 

The absence of seeping hearings also seems to preclude considering the 

question of continuing to produce plutonium at Hanford, and thus continuing 

to produce this waste. It would make no sense to discontinue plutonium 

production at Hanford permanently while continuing production elsewhere in 

the United States. Whether or not to continue plutonium warhead production 

at all is a question that DOE cannot answer unilaterally; this is a decision 

for Congress. 

2.3.1. 1 

THE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE HANFORD DEFENSE-RELATED WASTE 

The wastes included in the DEIS are:- HLW from the PUREx process 

stored in double-shell and single-shell tanks, current stored TRU waste. 

pre-1970 TRU waste, Sr and Cs capsules. TRU-contaminated soil, current acid 

waste, waste from cladding removal, organic wash wastes, finishing plant 

waste, and miscellaneous customer and N-reactor waste. The options 

presented. in addition to a 'no action' option, are: '(1) vitrification and 

Geologic disposal of most of the Waste. with in-place stabilization of the 

remainder; (2) in-place stabilization of all defense Waste: (3) a 

'reference alternative- in which HLW in double-shell tanks is vitrified for 

geologic disposal and the remainder of the defense waste is stabilized in 

place. Unfortunately, reduction of the waste stream is only alluded tO In 

2.3.2.2 the DEIS, and not adequately analyzed. The DEIS does not indicate a 

preferred disposal alternative, but asks for public comment on preferences, 

so that appropriate further research directions are indicated. 

2 

VITRIFICATION AND GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL 

RECE!VEif DOE-RL 

eUL 18 1986 DOW 

WIN DIVISION 

The 'geologic disposal' alternative, appropriately, does not concern 

itself with repository location. There is, however, considerable apprehension 

that the DOE decision not to proceed with the second HLW repository 

has pre-emoted geologic disposal, because the amount of vitrified defense 

waste thus generated, when added to the commercial Waste, would exceed the 

repository capacity. The DEIS indicates that geologic disposal of Hanford 

waste would yield 23,819 canisters of waste, which by WE calculations converts 

to 11.910 MTHM (more recent ME calculations indicate 22,000 

canisters, or 11,000 MTHM). An additional 7250 MTHM of defense HLW is an- 3.3.5.7 

ticipated from other sources. If commercial spent fuel requires 50,000 

MTHM repository capacity, and since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act limits the 

first repository to 10,000 MTHM, the first repository would be. ,lust 

adequate if WE's calculations are correct, but allows for only a 10% error 

(approximately) in those calculations. The final EIS most thus assure that 

work on the second repository will resume in atimely manner, or an amendsent 

to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act t0 expand the size of the first 

repository would be required.. Such an amendment would have considerable 

and complex repercussions. 

Vitrification of HLW appears: to to an .adequately tested .technology; 

there is an operating plant at Parabola in France. Moreover, the proposed 

3.1.8.10 

dissolving of waste in glass has considerable advantages over glass production 

from a calcine (as is done In Idaho). Calcining . requires exceedingly 3 3 2 3 

• . . 

high temperatures, and the calcine produced is a difficult substance to 

handle, isolate.. and manipulate (1 sakethese comments from personal experience 

with ntking doped glass from calcines). Although the behavior of 

radioactively-doped glass over periods of thousands of years cannot be predicted 

with any certainty, it is safe to assume that the glass is more 

stable than spent fuel itself. Even though there is the probability that 

glass devitrifies(since radiation damages the glass structure) and can 

than be leached by water,. the rate. of leaching of radioactive materials in 

the glass would be less than the leaching rate from spent :fuel, if only because 

the' radioactive material is considerably were dilute in glass than in 

spent fuel. Synthetic ceramics, like 'synroc% might prove preferable to 

glass, but synroc technology is not as well understood, 'nor would the difference 

in suitability. be very great. However, vitrification and geologic 

disposal have been recommended for radioactive waste since 1979, when a 

Study at these o - 

nuhlishnA by rhp U. s. e.nlnnir ci.... 

Rlrnutar of/ y : ° ueolog C Disposal of Radioactive Waste"). With all of the 

uncertainties attendant on very long term predictions, vitrification and 

geologic disposal appear to provide the most assured isolation of radioactive 

waste from the accessible environment.. 

The major drawbacks to vitrification are three: extensive handling of 

the material is necessary, considerable volumes of process waste are 

produced, and the costs in both dollars and ener gy are extremely high. 

Both the cost and the occupational radiation exposure -attendant on the 

geologic disposal alternative am almost an Order of magnitude higher than 

for the other alternatives. Occupational exposure may be decreased by increasing 

remote handling, but this markedly increases cost 

3

:l 

p 

071 071 

1— 

CD 

V 

3.1.4.5 

J 

3.1.6.1 

RECEIVED DOER 


JUL 18 986 JUL 18 986 

VVM DIVISION 

It is not clear that the witted proposed for digging solidified waste 

out of the single-shell tanks has ever been tested on any scale. A dry, 

met,d might appear preferable to any sort of hydraulic sluicing of the 

single-shell tanks, given their age. and partly corralled state, but other 

methods should an discussed and cospared. In particular, any method actually 

used for such a process west be included in the EIS. 

The DEIS does not cartel. asatisfactory discussion of the handling 

and treatment of current chemical (.a distinct from radiological) wastes 

from the PUREZ process, let alone an adequate discussion or analysis of 

process wastes from vitrification itself. The geologic disposal alterna- 

Iive would include a considerably larger waste stream than the reference 

alternative;. much of the waste contains compounds (sulfates, hydroxides, 

etc.) which cannot be incorporated into glass. Any final EIS should inclads 

a detailed discussion and analysis; a supplemental EIS should be considered. 

IN-PLACE STABILIZATION 

The discussion of in-place stabilization do the 0EIS makes it clear 

that actual experimental work done in supportof. this alternative is 

grossly insufficient. It is unclear from the discussions in Appendices A, 

3.3.2.4 B, 0 and M. whether descriptions are of conceptualizations or of actual experimentaldata; 

most of the methods described appear to be conceptual. 

.Appendices M. 0. and 0. which deal with hydrologic models, do not indicate 

clearly how these models have been calibrated and reveal insufficient experimental 

testing of models. - 

The success of in-place stabilization as an isolation technique 

depends on the performance of the oil overburden and capillary barrier. 

3.5.1.21 At present,. there has been . actual testing of adequately loamy or silty 

soils for this barrier, although such testing will apparently begin during 

the fiscal year; soils tested to date are not suitable for the barfla 

y . Thus, no decision at all can be was now on the adequacy of the 

proposed barrier for isolation from rain and weather. 

Oravel-and .rack fill is the only rethod proposed for stabilizing the 

single-shell tanks (Appendix B): it is proposed to fill the space in the 

tank above the dewatered solid waste with gravel or rock, which would sta- 

C bilizethe shape of the tank and contain the waste. This method is conceptual 

at present, and is certainly not the only method which could be con- 

. ceptualized.by DOE. While pouring grout or cement into the tank poses considerable 

problems ofwaste migration, other fill types should be considered 

which do not depend so heavily on drying the waste.. Clay 

Ibentanite or kaolin) or a clay and sand mixture might not only fill the 

tank but absorb remaining moisture in the waste and adsorb any wet waste. 

Clay fill might also penetrate the waste layers in the tank and provide a 

more complete fill. This sort of method needs to to investigated and 

tested. Complete chemical and radiological characterization of tank contents 

is also needed. 

3.14 . 25 

WM DIVISION 

There is an ongoing in situ vitrification project at Hanford, yet this 

method was not suggested l:or stabilizing contaminated soil sites. In-place 

vitrification might be the best method for stabilizing TAU-contaminated 

soil, and should be included in any EIS. In any case, deliberate contamination 

of the soil with TRU waste is unnecessarily risky, and the use 

of cribs and unlined ponds should be discontinued. Methods for reducing 

water volutes need to be investigated and substituted for simple absorption 

of contaminated solutions by soil. 

The proposed grouting process and WRAP facility are also only conceptualized 

as yet; the WRAP process needs to be tested to some extent. Different 

grout formulas need testing for consistency, setup time, drying 

rate, etc., before any decision . can be made on grouting. In sum, all 

aspects of the in-place stabilization proposal need actual experimental 

testing and a supplemental EIS before any decision an in-place stabslization 

can be made or recommended. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Informedcomparisons can be made only on the basis of adequate information 

on techniques of disposal, costs, and comparative risks. As has 

been pointed out above, the information given on in-place stabilization 

techniques is inadequate for informed comparison. Cost analysis in the 

OE IS i5 not adequate for anything; Appendices J' and K address costs without 

sufficient-0eta I). The only conclusion which can be drawn is that 

vitrification seems to be the most expensive waste treatment option. The 

mgnituds of the difference in cost between vitrification and in-place sta. 

bilization cannot be estimated until an.adequate cost analysis is done, 

however. 

Non-radiologic occupational risks, except for those associated with 

transportation, are not enumerated or analyzed in sufficient detail. 

Operation of the vitrification, grouting, and WRAP facilities is hazardous 

in that large quantities -of material, massive machinery, and, in the case 

Of vitrification, very high temperatures.. are involved. Removal of 

material from the tanks involves handling high-pressure water' streams. In 

the absence of adequate information, one may assume that 

each alternative 

is very hazardous to workers. Qualitatively, removal of material from 

tanks and vitrification appear to include greater non-radiological occupational 

hazard than the various me thodsgiven for in-place stabilization. 

Radiological risks among alternatives are amenable to soot comparison. 

The long term risks from geologic disposal (assessable from the EPA risk 

Assessment for 40 CFR 191) can be compared to the results of the two 

scenarios for: fai lure of the barriers in the in-place stabilization alternative 

(Appendices R and S). Both the radionuclide release-to-dose Conversion 

and the dose-to-risk conversion used by WE have been questioned,: but 

comparisons can still he made since the Sam conversion factors are used 

for all scenarios. Similarly, non-fatal cancers are excluded from health 

effects, but they are excluded in every case (an adequate risk analysis 

would be based on cancer incidence rather than cancer fatalities, and this 

should be done in the final EIS). - 

1671 

3.1.8.18 

3.1,4.14 

3.3.5.9 

3.2.6.8 

3.3.2.4 

3.4.1.11 

3.4.1.7 

3.5.5.8

ffV 7 f 'd -?P ^. 

X3'71 071 

O 


JUL 18 6% 

WM DIMION 

Although the research in the DEIS is inadequate for any conclusion, 

the impression given by the DEIS is that vitrification and .geologic disposal 

provide more secure isolation of the waste far the future, especially 

the distant future, than In-place stabilization, at the expense of canalterably 

greater present radiologic hazard Win to workers and to the 

2.3.2.2 

general public. This suggests that much more research is needed into the 

in-place stabilization options and the barrier before a real decision can 

be ma de. It is also true, however, that a decision should he made in the 

foreseeable future - in a few years - and even than there will he ob3ec. 

tuns on the grounds of insufficient information. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The fallowingrecommendations are for priorities for further research. 

r^ At this Lire there is not sufficient knowledge about in-place stabilization 

2 .3. 2 .3 to either include it in some combination with vitrification, like the 

re ference al ternative, or rule it out. Vitrification and geologic dispast, 

on the other hand, appear to provide sufficiently superior isolation 

that they should not be ruled out for the high-level tank waste and the encapsulated 

Sr and Ca. Further research will materially ass f st in a decision 

on the single-shell tank wastes, which simply cannot be made at 

present, add indicate the need for a supplemental EIS. 

e 

3.5.1. 56 1. The highest research priority should be into actual barrier performance 

under extreme climate conditions. if the barriers don't behave as anticipated, 

the geologic disposal alternative would be superior. 

p 

3 .1. 8 .2 1 2. The ..and research priority is actual testing, on some scale, of the 

transportable grout .facility and the NRAP facility, as well as testing of 

in situ vitrification for TRU-contaminated soil. Even with the geologic 

dfspol eaalternative, sans material will have to be stabilized in place. 

3. If the barrier performance is not as predicted, safe removal of 

material from the single-shelltanks assumes a high priority. Other 

3.1.4.5 mathoda than that given in the DEIS must be investigated, and any suggested 

method most be tested. Perhaps limited testing could be done one one or 

two cants, in any case, for both this priority and the following one. 

3.1.4.35 

4. If the barriers appear to perform as predicted. methods for stabilizing 

the single-shell tanks and their contents would assume a higher priority 

than methods of removing material from these tanks. - Other materials should 

be tested in addition to rack fill. 

The following recommendations are directed toward the final EIS, and 

relate to other aspects of the DEIS than further research. 

i 


JUL 18 MG oe 9/ 

3. A thorough analysis of WM DIVPIP.N O A • t 

g y non-radiological occupational hazards is nee e 

J Y 1 .7 

4. A thorough analysis of the relationship between each alternative, the . o 

decision to delay the second repository, and the rate of generation of coma- i 

.8 

nercial spent feet is needed. 

6. Options for reducing the defense waste stream, such as the process 

;gdffication facility, should be included. - 

2. 3 . 1 

6. A thorough analysis of the process waste streams and management of haz- C 

ardoucoastcal s- waste, including regulatory overlap and uncertainties following 

on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the mixed waste 

3. 1 . 6 .1 

issue, is needed. 

]. Since the Sr and Cs capsules require minimal, if any, treatment before 

be storage f a geol og f repository, the geologic repository appears to be the 3. 1 

st alternative for these, at least. Costs and advantages and disadvantages 

of this option should be explicit. 

.2 .5 

8. Adequate funding for the management of wastes from defense activities 

should be ass ores.. 

2. 2 .9 

9. Waste-producing defense activities should either he regulated directly 

by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 

2. 

t 

4 . 1 .1 

he. Environmental Protection 

Agency, or DOE should abide by the. regulations promulgated by these 

agencies by explicit written agreement. 

10. Differences . between the . DEIS and the re GAO report on TRU waste should be 3 . 1 . 3 

conciled. 

.7 

11. Use of cribs for radioactive liquid disposal should be discontinued. 

2.2.1 

^pp 

13. Cancer Incidence rather than cancer fatalities should be the measure of 

radiologic risk. 

3.5 . 5 8 

A FINAL STATEMENT 

The ultimate choice of which wastes to vitrify and which to stabilize 

in place will involve a balance be tween current public and occupational 

radiologic risks and potential future radiologic risks; e. g., vitrification 

entails the greatest occupational and public health risks but appears 

to provide the best tong-term isolation. The choice must be made carefully 

and knowledgeably and, if possible, such that all risks are minimized. 

.14 

3.1.8.9 

O 

3 .2.6. 8 

1. The vitrification facility should be fully tested with hot feed; 

vitrification appears to be the best option for at least some double-shell 

high-level tank waste and newly generated RLW from the PURER process. 

2. A thorough and detailed cost analysis of all options is needed. 

6 

7

0 72 

1 2 

0'72 

H 

C) 

O 

ID 

^/ Y AffAffff 

USSENATE= 

BROCK ADAMS' T-STIMONY 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

JULY 15, 19B6 

MR. WHITE, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MY NAME 25 

BROCK ADAMS AND I AM PLEASED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY. 

THE DISPOSAL OF HANFORD'$ 93-YEAR ACCUMULATION OF DEFENSE WASTE I9 ONE OF 

THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES. FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR REGION. FOR OUR 

GENERATION. AND FOR MANY GENERATIONS TO COME, 

YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD A GREAT DEAL OF TECHNICAL TESTIMONY AND I KNOW OTHERS 

WILLHAVE MORE TO ADD BEFORE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS. 

WHAT I'D LIKE TO CONCENTRATE ON TODAY IS THE QUESTION OF PUBLIC PROCESS: 

HOW TO WE DEAL WITH THIS COMPLEX ISSUE? HOW DO WE ACHIEVE REGIONAL 

CONSENSUS? HOW CAN WE ENSURE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY? 

AND FINALLY, HOW 00 WE 'MAKE SURE THE MONEY IS THERE TO PAY FOR THE CLEANUP 

OF HANFORD'S NUCLEAR WASTE? 

I'VE WATCHED CLOSELY AS YOU'VE GONE THRUUGH YOUR DEFENSE WASTE E.I.S. PUBLIC 

PROCESS, AND I'D LIKE TO COMPLIMENT YOU FOR A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO TAKE THE 

ISSUES TO OUR CITIZENS AND KEEP YOUR MINDS OPEN. 

YOU'VE MAUE VAST IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE TRADITIONAL DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WAY 

OF DOING THINGS.' 

IMPRESSED 

CITIZEN'S 

2.3.2.12 APPOINTED BYR MIKELLAWRENCE. IT WAS AHGOOD IDEAHTOS FORMA TRULYFOINDEPENDENT 

BODY OF CITIZENS TO REVIEW THE E.I.S., AND FRANKLY, IT TOOK GUTS TO INCLUDE 

SEVERAL HANFORD CRITICS ON THE FORUM. "..ON MY VANTAGE POINT, IT LOOKS LIKE 

THE EFFORT WILL PAY OFF. I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH SEVERAL 

MEMBERS OF THE FORUM, AND THEY REPORT TO ME THAT IT APPEARS LIKELY THAT 26 

CITIZENS, REPRESENTING DIFFERENT INTERESTS AND PERSPECTIVES, ARE GOING TO 

REACH A CONSENSUS. 

IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WILL CLOSELY PARALLEL THOSE 

ARRIVEDAT INDEPENDENTLY BY THE STATES OF OREGON AND WASHINGTON. IF DOE 15 

WILLING TO LIVE WITH THESE COMPROMISES - AND I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO - I 

THINK WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO ACHIEVING A REGIONAL CONSENSUS. 

BELIEVE ME, WE'RE GOING. TO NEED TO BE TOGETHER AS A REGION IF WE'RE EVER 

GOING TO GET CONGRESS TO APPROPRIATE THE -2 OR Z OR 11 BILLION DOLLARS IT 

WILL TAKE TO CLEAN UP HANFORD. 

THAT LAST POINT RAISES A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: IN AN ERA DP 

GRAMM-RUDMAN, HOW CAN WE GET THE MONEY? 

REÊhcD COE-RL. 

a2a 

Beanie Waslnn9^.n981 21 •(206).3 

rnv.eem ^s}w..n.u.m. 

'ÛL 18 1988 W17 

6MDI1J ISION 

Page two 

RECEIVED COL-RL 

JUL 18 1986 

WMDNISION 0072' 

FIRST, WE HAVE TO ACHIEVE THAT REGIONAL CONSENSUS. SECOND, AND THIS WILL BE 

ONE OF MY VERY FIRST ACTS WHEN I GO BACK TO WASHINGTON DC AS A U.S. SENATOR 

NEXT JANUARY, WE MUST SECURE THE FUNDS NOW TO PROCEED WITH THE CLEANUP.. AND 

FOP. FUTURE YEARS, WE MUST CREATE A TRUST FUND. CR OTHER UNTOUCHABLE SOURCE OF 

MONEY TO PROVIDE FOR THE ONGOING WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES. 

FOR TOO LONG, WE HAVE HIDDEN THE TRUE COST OF WEAPONS PRODUCTION BY NOT 

ACCOUNTING FOR THE BILLIONS IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO SAFELY DISPOSE OF THE 2.2. L 9J 

WASTE. 

IF OUR NATION'S POLICY IS TO CONTINUE TO BUILD MORE OF THESE WEAPONS -- AND 

I THINK WE SERIOUSLY NE E D TO QUESTION T E EE ORE -- THEN THE LEAST WE 

CAN DO IS PROVIDE THE MONEY ON A CURRENT BASIS TO PAY THE TRUE COST, 

INCLUDING DISPOSAL. 

NOW, 50 MUCH FOR DEFENSE WASTE.ITS SHEER VOLUME AND THE PROBLEMS .WE ARE 

HAVING WITH ITS SAFE DISPOSAL TIE DIRECTLY TO ANOTHER DOE DECISION INVOLVING 

HANFORD. 

AS WE ALL KNOW, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IS ALSO INVOLVED IN ANOTHER 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT OECISICN -- THE SITING DE TI_" NATION'S FIRST -- AND 

POSSIBLY ONSY --. DEEP REPOSITORY FOR COMMERCIAL AND MILITARY NUCLEAR 

WASTE. 

NOW I REALIZE THAT NONE OF YOU HERE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT HAVE 

ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE REPOSITORY DECISION. BUT I WANT YOU TO DO ME A 

FAVOR. 

. ^. V C 

I'D. LIKE YOU TO TAKE MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON D.C. FOR ME. THE MESSAGE 1 9 

THIS; WE HAVE TRIED PLAYING 

SYSTEM OF SAFE MONITORED RETRIEVABLE RSTORAGE E IMRSJ A SITES E IS THE ARIGHT ANSWER 3.3.4.2 

FOR THE .INTERIM OF 40 OR 50 .YEARS. 

THE CITIZENS 

ISSUE FEW 

WERE IGNORED. 

WE MUST START S DER I AND OT TRY AGAIN. CAN YOU IMAGINE ANPLACE Y IN THE 

CONTINENTAL U.S. THAT IS WORSE FROM R TRANSPORTATION PERSPECTIVE THAN 

HANFORD' 

THE TRANSPORTATION OF 70.000 TONS OF INTENSELY RADIOACTIVE COMMERCIAL WASTE 

MAY BE THE WEAKEST LINK. IN THIS POLITICAL CHAIN REACTION. 

IF YOU LIVE IN SPOKANE, OR BOISE OR MISSOULA OR EASTERN OREGON, AND HANFORD 

IS SELECTED AS THE NATION'S ATOMIC LANDFILL, PREPARE YOURSELF FOR ONE HECK 

OF A NUCLEAR PARADE. 1 7 5,000 TRACTOR-TRAILER TRUCKLOADS, OR MORE THAN 

22.000 TRAIN LOADS OF SPENT FUEL RODS WILL PASS THROUGH THESE NORTHWEST 

COMMUNITIES OVER A2B' YEAR PERIOD. 

OUR FRIENDS IN OREGON. IDAHO, MONTANA AND ONEVERY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

CORRIDOR C"GY.T TO BE JUST AS CONCERNED AS WE ARE. WE MUST UNITE WITH OTHER 

STATES AFFECTED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUE TO GIVE US THE POLITICAL 

MUSCLE WE OEVSOUS- Y DON'T HAVE TODAY IN THE U.S. SENATE. 

3. 4. 2. 

. L

V 9 

F 91 

5 

e5 

072 

073 

Page three 

3.4.2.2 

3.4.2.2 

AS A FORMER SECRETARY OF TRANSP ORTATION , I KNOW FIRST-HAND THE DANGERS OF 

TRg NBPORTING HAZARDOUS CARGO OVER THE . ION'S RAIL AND HIGHWAY SYSTEMS. 

I'VE SEEN. TOO MANY EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS THAT RESULTED IN LEAKS OR 

EXPLOSIONS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. I SHUDDER TO THINK OF THE EFFECTS 

OF A NUCLEAR TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT. 

DEADLY NUCLEAR GARBAGE WILL RUMBLE ALONG OUR HIGHWAYS IN ONE OF THE LONGEST 

AND MOST DANGEROUS CONVOYS IN HISTORY. THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MUST 

ENTER INTO A TRANSPORTATION WORKING AGP.EEMENI WITH REGIONAL STATES TO 

ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES AS: LIABILITY FOR ACCIDENTS, INFORMATION ABOUT THE 

TIMING, ROUTES AND CONTENTS OF .SHIPMENTS, AND CONTACT PROTOCOL BETWEEN THE 

STATES AND WASTE CARRIERS. 

f 

òoEn ACT FOR PERCEwome 1 STRIKE F08 PEACE 

v 

N 

D.wrtmeht of Energy 

EL CENTRO DE U RAZA . 2525 M6W booth, SeaWm jWw 99144 

SuNelYemen Act foe Peace/Vl6P 

Jay 15, 19B AECENED COE-RL. 

JUL 18 1986 JCT3 

i-4 

C) 

2.1.1 

A RIMI LAR AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN DOE AND THE STATE OF SOUTH 

CAROLINA IN 1900. THE CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON DEMAND THE SAME. 

WE IN WASHINGTON ARE WILLING TO DO OUR FAIR SHARE. WE HAVE SAID THAT IF THE 

PROCESS IS FAIR AND THE SCIENCE INDISPUTABLE WE WON'T PLAY THE "PLOT IN MV 

BACKYARD" GAME. WELL. THE ADMINISTRATION AND DOE MUST HAVE THOUGHT THEY 

COULD PU LL ONE OVER ON US. 

THEY CREATED AN ELABORATE SYSTEM TO EVALUATE THE FIVE SEMI-FINAL SITES, 

SPENT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IN THIS ELABORATE RANKING PROCESS, AND THEN, WHEN 

IT CAME RIGHT DOWN TO IT, DID THEY PICK THE TOP THREE .SITES? 

NO. THEY PICKED NUMBERS ONE, THREE AND FIVE." HANFORD WAS NUMBER FIVE, BUT 

SOMEHOW MADE THE TOP-THREE LIST. THAT ISN'T SCIENCE, THAT ISN'T FAIRNESS, 

THAT'S THE DOE NUCLEAR LOTTO GAME. THE EXPLANATION WAS THAT DOE WANTED 

8O-CALLED GEOLOGIC DIVERSITY AND THAT HANFORD'S BASALT FILLED THE BILL. 

BUT AT THE GAME TIME, THE DEPARTMENT CANCELLED ALL THE EAST COAST GRANITE 

SITES WHEN IT CALLED OFF THE SEARCH FOR THE SECOND REPOSITORY. 

WM DIVISION 

There Ss mare to the federally directed decision for Sanford to become the 

nation's nuclear dmnnelte than meets the eye. 

What an hear from our adninistratim and oiliticians is ¢a phasia on science and 

technology. Today, and even yesterday, we have bean and are faced with a series 

3.4.3.1 

of reablems of cateolfaml0 c naepnances that have not yet been solved. As ad exawale; 

the .1A9 single walled tanks. containing meet deadly noalear Waste from 

defend.Eduction ( ao offensive m.'oduciion ) of these tanks almost CA are 

leaking (27) add no real solution In eight. The thake, and many ether hecards 

are deadly heserds to all living things, 'headed included. 

While the point in Ouestlan today is nuclear waste disnosal, high and low level, 2.5.5 

The Chern all accident sets anxample Of the Inherent danger. of a 

ompatitive runaway wience add technologyprogram or as I like to vie. 1t, the 

Ltliecriml.ute oarsult of science And technology a aired by Interest groundmainly 

the military anal those who profit financially the a eoutive and 3eglalative.branches 

of car government cheery! 

THE FACT IS, THESE EXPLANATIONS ARE PURE BUNK AND WE AREN'T BUYING IT. 

THE FACT IS, THE ADMINISTRATION IS PLAYING POLITICS. 

THE EAST GETS THE POWER, AND WE GET THE GARBAGE. 

THE FACT IS, WE HERE IN THE NORTHWEST HAVE LEARNED JUST HOW FAIR AND 

REA80NRBLE THE PROCESS IS. AND IN NOVEMBER, AFTER THE LEGISLATURE HAS MET TO 

PUT A REFERENDUM ON THE BALLOT, THE PEOPLE OF WASHINGTON STATE ARE GOING TO 

HAVE A CHANCE TO TELL WASHINGTON OC JUST WHAT THEY THINK OF THE 

ADMINISTRATION PLAYING POLITICS WITH OUR LAND AND OUR LIVES. 

We have dot awed learnei to cape with presant nuclear waste. at least not safely, 

and Age we want to ac Ovulate m and more at a dizzying rate-in Hanford. Net 

Only the tanks are leaking as mentioned drevlously, but .there are lacks underground 

and aepladeifiea reports will not reach to wul 1 0 to zo ynard- TatTTm . 

antl, deal ... ified remrta reforming to melt sows or ne melt a -F. 1 the '.,.. 4.3.1 

19503 and 19603 lustily ayremark3. It also fills the people of one country with 

A deep as.. of atorsh ... 1. sM mistrust. Th. tranaeentation of .pent hot rode, 

graa1u, to the subeequa¢t csnverelea to dlitonlm pohas aeve=A1 gave hammed.. 

WE ARE GOING TO ORGANIZE. WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO SPEAK WITH 

ONE VOICE. THEY MAY BE THREE THOUSAND MILES. AWAY, BUT I GUARANTEE THEY'RE 

GOING TO HEAR US LOUD AND CLEAR. 

Muc h has been written by research scientists. w umbared by the Pentagon and/or 

_ sanufactiaers interests. They imply test If the Nuclear Waste Board and 

the DOE will at head their advice, og state will be facing a.Pearard.. four.-. 

If a future at .11- 

2.1.1 OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES HAVEN'T MADE R DENT, .For most. 

st.. the salatidn to ..I. West. dleweal 1. not to Mass it on to another 

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 

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 

rode--we do.net need m¢

i fr 

F 

ti 1 

074 0'74 

H 


Statement of Estella B. Leopold JUL 18 IM 

Department of Be i.e. 

0074 

University of Washington WMD IVIIjbN 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The EIS makes su perficial mention of possible impacts from 

climate Chour. but the treatment Is inade quate in terms of human 

safewty. Considering the importance at long harm conditions, and 

3.5.6.1 ea lth of modern data climate systems (unexplored by DOE) 

this topic in short shrift, is undo..... two and I. ..fully 

inadequate. Just.entioning a problem is no substitute for an 

analysis. 

3 

The safet y of the buried .defense wastes as well.. as the 

repository must be considered on a geologic time9[ale. Th. 

federa l. suidelines indicate that radioactive wastes must not leak 

into the accessible environment for 10,000 years. That figure 

.5.6.1 should better he 100,000 years, Considering the length of time 

before the high level wastes ..aidtlec.. to a safe " level". 

10,000 years i x the 'age of our vilisation. 100,000 years is 

the age of later Stone age cultures• 

An analysis of past timing of climate and glaciation an such a 

timescale can be a basis for projecting the future climate for 

astern Washington. 

e The reason this 1s relevant is that any Change in climate means 

Change in hydrology. 

Long range climate can now be predicted because it i 

established that our climate is forced be orbital Characteristics 

on earth, not mentioned by the EIS. 

The Present interglacial, 10,000 9rs long se far, has been 

..line Over the last 4000 years. TM1e last interglaCial CompleN, 

recorded be detailed fossil pollen data in France, sh ... d 3 w 

periods , each as warm a as today, each lasting as 10,009 years and 

_.... each entling rather O .ly with arJar ice is v.. . t in the Vosges 

. 

p . .took only C . 1 110 

]0 y ears for tem perate tt to be 

replaced Sc a boreal n radian type near Paris. In n the ye third 

cooling, 

Scanar an i reached Amsterdam only 4000 bears after 

the warmest part t of theCenterglaciaL 

this figure. This projection is sntetl, s it appears to be 

a guess. Pat based on serious a sroa.h. 

Under A full glacial climate, catastrophic flood. like the 

Missoula floods of the late-glacial accross eastern Washington, 

could wipe out the alluvium of the HHnford Reservation, change 

the position of the Columbia River. r ing part or all of the 

buried waste tanks, the reactors, asd gthe Purex Plant (net 

mentioned). 

Recent flootls in relation to HO.1—d ... dealt with 

su p erficiall y . Floods of historical ma gnitude (1949 and 1894) 

with about 21.,000 cubic meters/sec "would inundate the l00-F area 

but woultl be of little c e to the rest of the Site' (p 

4.10 no documentation). However such floods would im pact ground 

water .levels awa y from the river and flush out existin g wastes in 

the alluvium into the raver. 

The EIS considers failure of the grand Coulee Dam. But it only 

Considers scenarios for 25% and 902 failure. It sa ys the 100 

areas and J00 area along the r mould be flooded, but falls to 

Point out the relation to the N VRee,tor which would indeed be 

flooded. DOE's Ca pacit y to shut dome o Op erate the Plant 'woultl 

be insignificant. Such a condition suld u s pell severe disaster 

with • grave environmental c nse guences for the re9,ion of. the 

Columbia Basin and the liver Ṫhe HPPS Nuclear Plants woultl also 

be flooded. DOE fails to deal with these obvious hazards. 

The EIS do.. at take ^^ !to ac .t that if the Grand Coulee 

Dam 

thePriest R rw 0 m just above the Hanford 

Reservation r ic a old probably 90 too. and this event mi ght increase 

Public ha2ar tl5 b y anofheY order of agnitutle. 

a 

v 

In ........ the RIB does not adequatel y address the topic of 

environmental and climate. change. With all the geological 

ex p ertise 005 has brou g ht to bear an the 218, it has avoided the 

most serious problem of all-- time and long term h y drology. This 

is a fatal flaw of the EIS and the Project. 

3.5.6.8 

3.5.6.5 

3.5.6.6 

This means that the earth probably will experience the 

begining of a major glaciation. within the next 4-5000 years. A 

delay estimated at ca 2000 yr. Could be ..need by CO2 i 

of the atmosphere (however, the s called greenhouse effect ® does 

not .... to be happening). C.Pmarvativel y projecting from the 

past 100,000 .Bare, . shift to a glacial climate should b Co., 

in 5-7000 yrs. 

RECEIVED( DOERL 

I$ue- 

JUL2-r WG 0074 

WM DIVISION 

DOE assumes that Precipitation might double in eastern 

3.5.6.1 Washington um and Pr Y. ..is Only a mall increase O water entering 

the Surface aq uifer. The EIS does . not explain how arrived 

at

0 75 


>aP.rl^...,.N „r EwrRY FN^HUO n.Ar1.E 

F.H.r.1 EaTN1AE A.an.r1N. JUL 18 1988 

S..NNIN, :n,:mNEVOH 00-79 

ONI, 15, USE 

WM DIVISION 

I AN NAVY Ar=N 7273 SOUTH 12S[h S . OMET. SEAT212, VUL 981 78 . 

If UE. MN TO NO 'THA( T'li, S,i4'S OF HBM INGION AND US RESIDENTS HAVE A1,Mbl ACCM&D NONE 

1 

2.1 e THAN MOM SHARE OF THE NAT ION'S MICIAM NASLE. 

8E ALL CARS MOM'1'nE GENtl 10. OF F&OVIS THAT NIIL NAVE TO LIVE IN TOM OWTOS AFTER IN 

ME 110 WHOM HENS. N'E HAVE A NLSPoI6YtlILITY NOT TO PoLW'1'8 THEIR "fa SNPPLILF, THE AM 

THEY IVILL GAVE TO UNEAI'HE "D THE FOOD CHAIN TREY WILL SEND TO EYIST ....AND FOR THAT MA TTER, 

ROT TO PASS US 'CHE HoE.ENWOS 'TAX BJRDRN THAT WILL HE NECESSARY 1'0 STORE, WNrrQR AND PROTEAN 

llw L LVE'S MOM NIICLSAR 15ASIS CONTAMINATION. 

SINCE NiYWY 90}' OF COIMSUCIAL MCI RAN NASIE IS GENERATED IN THE PRETEEN PART OF THE UNIT= 

STATES ISN'T IT INCJWHEMNSIUIE 'THAI THE FEDERAL GOVEMML •NT IS RON TELLING U8 MAY SANFORD 

IS TABS ONLY PERMANENT REPOSITORY BOESEDI 

0 75 

PAUE 2 1d.:v .c aun 

I 'MINK DUE Thl !G Y,!AY DISTURBS ME THE MGM L4 l'NSP. UP UNTIL "i. ME PeD.41. UOIERMIIM AND 

THE WCILBILLIUN WLGR NUCLGUt INWSLHY NAVE BE®1 NWT REWCI'ANT TO INFORM CITIZENS ABOUT 

THIS ISSUE. MUCH. J MST THEY HAVE &A ID HAVE SIR DAIF_TRUI'HS AND EVASIVE, BWtl AS NFL=, 

MAINTAINING THAT THE SIX-MMOM PANEL APPOINTED BY THE WE TO INIVISIIGATE THE H REAMBE SAPEfY,2 , 5 . 5 

AM REALLY UDI A GROUP OR COMMITTEE TRACT FEDYUAL LN RESUME SHOW DIED ':D MR MENTIONS TO THR 

PUNLIC. BUT, RATHER, SIX I:IDIVIDJAIS WHO HAVE, AM IIIU IN 2,, FUTURE, BE A TIMW BRINGING, 

GOT NET TIBBS AND MAY ' CHER P:h(B. MEN, BEGINS 

M,. ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS TEIJ.IHO US NM 

TO WURRY .... OH, INGU:AR UMCX NILE BE Vll'RIF'ISD ASD SAFT;LY SPORED MEN THEY Ul THAT F RANCS '] 

FS HAVlUG 'THUUd" .11TH TI'S 'JII'RIFICAfION PLANT. MY 

'I p ''II 

NOT 'TRUEMM,Y' TEIy-_USi4l'yAI'THg ,T_YC,1r yC4 Me 1 e U, 1Q 

Iftl.0 CIJ LLC KL 

BUY FOR SAFELY NANA.:ILG HUCLE N( WASTE IS. AS T6T ' JNg1UliN. 

JUL 18 1986 pG-/5 

GDOGRATIC BOVIANMEIR 

PO DS EM U N THE INFORMED AND ADervE.PAEfmIPA'l'IOx oN//If)01SaMZ 

-1" REQUIRES THAT GOlIMEWAL BODIES PoO1'EC'f THE CITIZENS RIGNY TO ANDY. 

ILOST OF ME HAVE ONLY A VAGUE IDEA OF IVW GORE ON AT THE SANFORD RFSRNVATION. TOM MAY IR 

N3.4.2.2 

IT W111, HE INWREDIMX EYPFNSIVE TO MOVE SPIDR ABEL TO SANFORD. MAN TN TRANSIT IT WILL BB 

SUBJECT To ACCIDENTS. THEFT AM TERRORIST MACK. 

THE UNITED STAIRS DSPN'PYENf OF ENERGY HAS IDENTIFIED NEARLY 60) SCHISMS FACILITI ES CURSENTUT 

GBWLEfB OR EXPECTED TO BECOME OBSOLETE IN THE SONY FLAN MEANS. AS N SGNPIS. THE SUIPPIMMYNT 

ATOMIC PoAN STATION, JUS T 'BUTT OP PIITSBURCN. PRI SYLVN IA , BY TODLY'S STANDARDS AVERY SWID 

RB. XM. WAS DeCOWIiSIONED AND PAM' OF IT SHIPPED TO SA NFORD IIST YEAR. IT YOUR OURD 7.800 

MILES VIA RIFER, MW. PANAMA CLNAL, THRO UG H PORrIAND ND UP TH EN CO LUMB IA RIVE@ 'f0 )WINTERS. 

NOM 2 NILLIU.Y PEOPLE. 1.2 FOREIGN OF TUBE IY THE PNTLNFVAICOUFNH AREA. LIVE AWN) THE 

COWISL RIV ER. THE PORTLAND CUSTOMS DISTRICT HANDLED $4.1 BILISOB III EN FORC E ADD J3.N BIILIW 

I IMPORTS WRING 1984. THS MOSCOW FALSE OF ONE PONT DISTRICTS ALOES TIE R IVER IN SHE 

3.2.6.1 BILLION. TRUE... SNFEH AND COWNESOLL FISHING BEING MUCH NEEITH TO ME REGION. R ANGING 

HISMACYI VB INSfE 18 A THREAT W ALL OF DF83R. 

NEIGHBORS TO CU R,,CE 8. MIAARE, A USDOB OFFICIAL Itl DECOnI24I0YIEG. SANFORD WILL =0 

RECEIVE SOME 230 TRUCKLOADS OF SHIPPIEGFORY DADIDUCCNE D®x$ - A 2, 000 IMIT STALIN HAUL. 

PAM' DB WE I'0 THE FACf THAT FROM ITS INCEPTION IN 1943 AS PERT OF ME OOVEMUSES ,Z SMOMTN 

PROJECT TO M AN UFACTURE ATOM BOERS, 1 1 BASED, PON ITS ""ICE 

WAS SO MOUNT THAT EVEN TUBES 

WNO WOMEN TM Ntl MHE MIME OF WHAT THEY WEN PRODUCING. MEN Op ITS AC'L p W'IFS SINCE NAYS 

BEEN CARRIED OUT IN N AM OF GREAT SSC,,,Y. 

DUUlRING BACK ON 'TH OS E YEARS 2. PETER LINBAGSI. GENERAL COMM FM THE p,SM,,RM OF HEALTH, 

EDUCATION AND WSIFAHS TOLD A JOINT CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE IN APRIL OF 19X9. 

'THE NERICN PHIFLS ME NOT INFORMED OF THE EVIDENCE THAT YNS WHItINH WIRING THE 

MICE 1x1 196On OF YEN UNCERTAINTY AD TO THE NSALfH EFFECTS FROM VARIATION ...I NWID 

8AY M ORE WAS A SEVERAL ATMOSPHERE AND A' 1111E MAY THE AMBHICN FRIAR. STYES THE FACTS, 

WOULD NOT MARE TIER BIow RLSS.S"mr MONSOON.' 

EHAT I OWN AB OUT NUCLEAR IYAS'T8 NAXWEER COMER FROM RAN, MOM W SURFER BPSAA ON ON THIN 

SUBJECT. I'M GRA TEFUL TO X88 INVESZGA'f IYB RBPUREMS OF ME 88PTTU TIMES, BEATTIE ME, 

INfEJ,IHGEICBIt, THE GROSSMAN ND THE IIILADRLPBL INQUIRES FOR PROVIDING W MUCH BARBECUES 

-,HFORME• ION. PUBLICATIONS BY 'HE HARRING ON PHYSICIANS FER SOCIAL 8(SFONeIBILITY. 'm ExAGUB 

OF NBIMR Awma of S PoRNM. ME MASON OF VNEM vMMS BWCATIOM FOND. X88 RENN DETER FEE,

F a 

@ 

k 

^Jg 

f' 

`f 

j 

?y 

xt 

€ 75 

M 

f3 

W 

2.5.5 

Pn+ti 3 ... BON lwdlv,,IIY 

IRE :wiB 1fIV[ull 1WCL6An 9A 3 , JW D. DR. ALLEN y . aSl,S N AUD U:UlY Bi1JOK'S "BWI-ING IN THE 

HIND" a.0 .. uIIMD 001h,N SJJWS AND tVJL11ATI01ti HAVE SEEN Wlif I.U.L. 

IT AIJU Y 1LKU1 AS A11t y :u1tN I HEAD IN EWUICE ARTICLE THAT rRE DEPARIWENf OF 

3NENGY AN, 1'TS CUN1'HACI'Uid,... HOD,,LL HANTHED OPS flOM3, BA'1'TELLE, IiESTINGUOUSE HANF'ORD, 

AND UNC WJCLE H IN ABTNI S...WIL SPEND MORE THAN 15 LIUMN THIS Y AE AM WaRMY TD WORKERS, 

INCLUDING AN OU'E31DI PUHLIC-HFUf1UNS PINY, CO DELP ON THE DNFANSE •WAl"& IHSSE' 

ALL I ti K IS MALL TH6 DEPARTMENT OF SNMQY, McENSS Di:PAH'fYENf AND ME ESCLEW INDUSTRY 

LNEL :I TIN US AND SELL IT "LIKE It IS.- AS SAN MEN PHOBAELY ACRES ON SOME FORM OF 

J 

3.3.4.2 MONIf0,dD He'fNISVASLE SfONAOE THAT HE w&LL MAIMINED AND PROTECTED... WEN THOUGH 1'NAT, 

Too, IS RISKY. 

2. 5 . V R SEEMS ONLY LOGICAL l'0 SeoP FUNTHEH PAOWCTIOY OF CDElDROM AND DEFENSE NUOLEAR WASTE 

UMIL hS CAN SAFELY DISPOSE OF V. 


JUL 18 1986 oo15 

WM DIVISION 

HOW DOES DOE SHRINK HI LEVEL WASTES? 


JUL 18 1986 

00-M 

WMOIVISION 

Th. U9 De partment of Ener gy bas earlier ind-at d! it must bury 

500,000 cubic yards of transuranic wastes. The HIS cites 32.000 

cubic motors of mntaminatod soil.. NOW we beer recently that the 

volume is 52 million gallons of waste. 

One way we fear DOE is shrinkin g the volume of defense waste 2.4.1.8 

it must take care of is to redefine what high-level and low-level 

waste i 

s . Under their n new standards the Hanford plant has been 

able to reclassify 9 of the 12 million cubic meters of soil 

contaminated or disposed liquid p{utonium waste .. •low-level". 

and to reduce the ra in9 3 million cubic meters wwithout 

explanation to 32,000 cubic meters. 

The now standards may also allow Hanford to leave high-level 

.sets 

in at ora g e. tanks- contrar y to p ublic law- le. cases where 

the tanks ' have. tailed and cannot be removed. 

The loo phole in this Procedure is hi g hl y dandermus for the 

peo p le of Washing ton and the region. If one takes hi g h level 

waste ' m s it with enough soil, it can be termed as "low level' 

and thrown in a trench n , o p en to the environment. This is no wa y 

to r a business, particularl y one as seriousl y devastating as 

nuclear waste! 

0^ LCOQa6 `.l 

'. 5668 i141, N e, 

$, ,ti(t we . 

3.1.1.9 

2 .5 . 

C 

J

1F 

R, 

'k 

3 FS 

077 UO 

N 

L`L"!VFLJ LOL-kL 

WALBRIDGE J. POWELL 

JUL IS M 

ENGINEER&GEOLOGIST 12061 232-5295 

4314 island crest Way mercer Island,WA 98040VIM DIVISION 

JULY 15,1986 

ON SATURDAY JUNE Z. 1 STARTED MY 60TH YEAR ON EARTH BY READING AN ARTICLE IN THE 

SEATTLE P-1 WHICH STATED THAT THE LEVELS OF RADIATION AT KIEV, A CITY OF 2.5 MILLION 

PEOPLE, WERE APPROXIMATELY 15 TO JO TIMES NORMAL,THAT ABORTIONS HAD BEEN (,ECOMMENDED 

FOR SOME WOMEN CAUGHT IN THE RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT FROM THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT. THE 

ARTICLE WENT ON TO SAY THAT 100,000 PEOPLE EVACUATED FROM THE 19 MILE DANGER ZONE 

RUN A NIGH RISK OF DEVELOPING LEUKEMIA AND THYROID CANCERf THAT REGIONS OF ITALY HAD 

ISSUED WARNINGS ABOUT CHERRIES AND PRODUCTS MADE FROM THE MILK OF SHEEP AND GLUTS; 

AND SWEDEN HAD CANCELLED THE ANNUAL SUMMER REINDEER HUNT. 

v 

^ LET US NOW SUBSTITUTE SPOKANE, SEATTLE, AND PORTLAND AND OTHER SMALLER CITIES FOR 

THE KIEV AREA, THE COLUMBIA FOR THE PRIPYAT, AND TWO WEEKS IN 1986 FOR 1942 TO THE 

iD 

!3 PRESENL THE LANGUAGE FROM RUSSIAN TO U. S. BUREAUGARBLE. 

WHAT THE RUSSIANS UNFORTUNATELY ACCOMPLISHED IN A SHORT TIME, WE ALREADY HAVE, 

0. ACCOMPLISHED. THE HANFORD OPEN AIR THRUSHES HAVE LEAKED SINCE THEY WERE INSTALLED. 

L) 

THE N REACTOR HAS SPEWED RADIOACTIVE GARBAGE SINCE IT WAS FIRST ACTIVATED. PURER 

O 

>• IS VOMITING RADIOACTIVITY INTO THE AIR RIGHT NOW. RADIOACTIVITY IS SEEPING INTO 

THE COLUMBIA RIVER AT THIS INSTANT. 

LET US EXAMINE HOW WE HAVE COME TO INHERIT THIS LIVING HELL. WE ALL KNOW AB gWT THE 

HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL EFFORT TO PRODUCE AN ATOMIC BOMB WRING WORLD WAR II. WITH THE 

ADVENT OF PEACE WE HAD THIS STABLE OF BOY WONDERS WHO WOULD BE UNEMPLOYED SO THE 

DEFENSE DAPARTMENT DECIDED TO PROMOTE NUCLEAR BOMBS, MISSILES AND POWER PLANTS. 

OF COURSE, TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY BOMB AATERIAL.FUEL, AND MATERIALS FOR TESTING 

IN NEVADA,EHIWETOK,BIKINI,ANO JUST OFFSHORE OF SAN DIEGO AN ENORMOUS CADRE OF 

BUREAUCRATS AND CONTRACTORS WAS DEVELOPED, THEY ARE STILL WITH US BUT THEIR COUNT 

HAS MULTIPLIED TEN TIMES OVER, 

AS THE YEARS HAVE PASSED, BOMBS WERE SET OFF ABOVE AND BELOW THE GROUND AND OCEAN, 

OVER 250,000 CIVILIANS AND SERVICEMEN ARE KNOW TO HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO TO VAST 

I WALBRIDGE J. POWELL To DOE JULY 15.1986 PAGE 2 1 .. JUL 18 1986 641 

QUANTITIES OF RADIOACTIVITY, POWER PLANTS HAVE BEEN BUILT AND HAVE MELTENHM DIYI$ION 

DOWN AND VENTED (THREE MILE ISLAND LAND THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, NOW THE 

DEPT. OF ENERGY STILL MAINTAINS THAT A LITTLE RADIOACTIVITY WILL NOT HURT ANYONE. 

THAT IS ANALOGOUS TO SAYING THAT A TIGER IS ONLY SLIGHTLY FEROCIOUS OR THAT IT 

IS EASY TO KEEP. AN ELEPHANT AS A PET IN A SMALL HUT. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE I WOULD 

ASK WHY DO TIGER KEEPERS HAVE SUCH HOBBY FINGERS AND IN THE SECOND I WOULD ASK WHY 

THE EIffWNT 's MASTER SLEPT.DUTSIDE. 

WASTE WAS DUMPED OUTSIDE AT HANFORD BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST TOO LAZY TO FIGURE OUT 

WHAT TO DO WITH IT AND BES ID ES, IT WAS GOVERNMENT LAND AND YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU 

WANT ON GOVERNMENT LAND IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. 

IN THE 19505 A TREMENDOUS EXPLOSION OCCURRED IN THE URALS OF RUSSIA. SPENT FUEL 

3) /^ p 

HAD REACTED AND CONTAMINATED HUNDREDS OF SQUARE MILES. THAT AREA IS NOT IN USE TODAY ,4 ,3 . H 

AMR WILL FOREVER BE UNTENABLE. ON THE HANFORD RESERVATION WE HAVE THE SAME SITUATION 

AND IT COULD GET WORSE. 

THE FOLLOWING COULD HAPPEN IN THE AREA OF THE Z-TRENCHESf I. LIQUID WASTE HELD IN 

AR Z-TRENCH COULD LEAK AS IT HAS BEEN FOR FORTY YEARS. P.. THE wAsrE PdKTLATES LYNN AND 

IS ENTRAPPED AND CONCENTRATED BY COLUMNAR CHROMATOGRAPHY IN WHICH DIFFERENT 

3.4.3.8 

SUBSTANCES ARE SEPARATED OUT BY THE SOIL AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS DEPENDING ON THEIR 

MOLECULAR WEIGHTS M PROPERTIES. THE PLUTONIUM 1S ADSORBED I BOUND TO THE SURFACE 

OF OIL PARTICLES BY MOLECULAR BONDS) INTO A RELATIVELY THIN LAYER OF THE SOIL. 

A CHAIN REACTION IS SET OFF BY WATER PERCOLATING INTO THE P LU TONIUM RICH SOI L. THE 

HIGH TEMPERATURE OF THE PLUTONIUM MOULD CAUSE MASS I VE QUANTITIES OF HIGH PRESSURE 

STEAM TO FORM, THE EXPLOSION WOULD RESEMBLE A MUD VOLCANO AND WOULD PROJECT INTENSay 

RADIOACTIVE AEROSOLS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, THE END RESULT WOULD BE CONTAMINATION OF THE 

WNEATLANDS OF EASTERN WASHINGTON,CITIES CONTAMINATED, THE RIVER AND SUERFACE WATER 

MADE PERMANENTLY UNUSABLE. THE AREA WOULD BE ECOLOGICALLY DEAD AMU 1 19U Nre"lf 

WOULD WISH FOR DEATHS RELEASE. - 

TODAY WE HAVE THE DOE INVOLVED IN: DISPOSAL OFCICILIAN WASTE, DISPOSAL OF MILITARY 

WASTE INCLUDING 1 7 .000 TONS OF WASTE IN PLACE PLUS.NUCLFAR FUEL FROM SURFACE AS

1 0 

HAI 

07'7 078 

JUL 18 1986 0611 

I NALBfl 1aGE J. POwfu TO DOE JUL, 15, 1986 PAGE 31 11M E Vi iI IC, 

WELL AS SUBSURFACE VESSELS AS WELL AS THEIR REACTOR CASINGS (100 NUCLEAR SUBMARINES 

IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS ); DEVELOPING A MINIATURE REACTOR FOR THE STAR NABS PUMPING LASER 

A 

°cam 1 i DOE-Rl 

\V^â UL 3 8 p88 JUL 

PI My 

606 

The Washington Public Interest Researcll"W' "FN 

5635 Uai miry WyNE - Sono. WA SAROS (306)5E6RNN1 

ANE OF THESE WAS SCHEOULWFOR LAUNCH ON A SPACE SHUTTLE CLOSELY FOLLOWING CHALLENGER 

AND ONE SNNLR HAVE BEEN ON BOARD THE TITAN MISSILE THAT EXPLODED. JUST ABOVE ITS PAD 

Statement on the Inadequacies of the O.S.Dept. of SnergyS 

Sanford Defends Wastes S.I.S. 

N 

N 

Ln 

2.5.5 

APRIL 18. 1986); PLOTTING THE SHIPMENT OF WASTE FROM A DEFENSE DEPARTMENT LOAN TO d 

COMMERCIAL REACTOR IN TAIWAN THROOGH THE PORT OF SEATTLE FOR RECYCLING AT SAVANNAH 

3000 MILES AWAY; EXPERIMENTING WITH A WASTE ISOLATION PLANT IN CARLSBAD NEW MEXICO) 

ATTEMPTING TO DISIGN A SAFE CASK FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN WASTE 

ITNGET DATE IS 19% ALTHOUGH SHIPMENTS FROM ME M ILE ISLAND ARE MRIVING AT WNFgO EVES WEEKI; 

CFEMTING THE RFEN P.M, FOR P n,,FICH OF 9YID IAp I. AND PIACEmi. CF SEEM FUEL F" THE FAST 

FU LEST FACILITY (CRUSHES WERE DE oU THE DoE ENVIRONIENTAL ("PACT STATDENT ALY 7, 086); AND 

INTEmERNDE WIT11k. N]ff.RI G ALE'S EFFECTS. ttI DEVELOP A SYMPOSIUM OF U.S. AND SOVIET Sonco OWiGEU 

WITH DETERMINING THE SFECI1ML$ OF NNE MAKDON TWECESQU S IN ALLEVIATING TE EFFECTS ED E ENTI SLEE 

TO RADIO"CFIVITY 

'file BIWf/NffOtTIC MITI Krw1 AS THE DOE ( I Gu. IT OF TfPNOVENT U WIVI ON ) IS &M WSYUY 

C(OIECFINi FALSE DATA TO JJSIIFS T£ EDICT OE HMYORD AS THE IDLE NUCLEAR WASTE FACILITY IN THE Ur - 

0, OF TE PRIME CfMIINCUMS IN Au OF TIE DOE'S CuU CcTS Is R(C RgpIfL4 I T 

STwm Ara TIE ^ .^. 

OE FOCM,9.L'S WOM ON U.F. PRP.ERS, 

WE CAN THEREFORE MAKE ASSUMPTIONS As TO IE eNLm MV RE-IMam 

I MOOD SULEST TNT YEN CCMACT YOUR CJAWSWF..N TrMRROW NO T . N L SEEN TO PF. WT UP PAN 

ON dMNEU; IU EUEOPE ANU ASIA. THEY SFFM Tt 11111 TNT TIE WCLFME OF [iiOT E AND ASIA ME MODE IN- 

FOUDNI THAN THAT a THEIR MM F. F. 

TIEAE IS ONLY ONS WAY THAT WE CAN CETAIN C.Do OF THE IT.E AND THAT IS TUTAXCI FIMMIFES. WIN YOD 

CA LL IF WRITE (PFEEERULY) YOUR FUNIPTE101 TE LL THEN TAT YIMI TH. THAT TIE ITT. IS art OF WRO- 

IM TEAT YUI MN YUB FRIENDSKNOW OF A GIMiD AO,ICATE FCA TKIH OFFUE..MST MIGHT VOTE 10 NT 

D EC FINIS TO IT. AFTER ALL, SHOULD WE TryF"ATF nT RENICRKY WNSF MM1in S1v1.D IT " WE Mi AQUA; 

P n 

MSIFAR VVSI6ID RE MWIET flNE AND D F1' IT htlE / / '/ / ip l) T 4—Aa ; f 

FL 

VUy I»I rcF ! F'^ L 

The Department. of Energy: is pieceaealing the public to 

death. They refuse to discuss all related Sanford radioactive and 

toxic waste problems in one Environmental Impact Statement and 

one decision-making process, The issues are interrelated and the 

cumulative . impacts from all the wastes at Hanford are so 

2.3.1.14 

tremendous as to .probably make Hanford the world's largest and 

most complex toxic waste dump. The people of the State deserve 

better treatment than to have the significance of the issues hid 

from them and their participation discouraged by- the DOE's 

insistence on piecemealing the clean up problem in multiple 2 5.5 

thousand page. EISea, The DoE evidently hopes that many of the 

problems at Hanford will fall between the cracks of public 

concern. Thus, the heart of our concern is that the Defense Waste 

918 is totally inadequate in its scope: 

The public deserve.$-to. know right now that this 

Environmental Impact Statement processof the DoE's:fe being 

35.4 3 J 

dominated by cost considerations rather thatn the search for the .. 

beat available technology or achievement of the maximum possible 

cleanup of contaminated areas. Any private industry which 

indiscriminately dumped it toxic wastes the way the 'DOE has 2. 

would .see its officials in jail and would be ordered to achieve L L 1 

the maximum possible-cleanup -.regardless of coat. Our testimony 

fecusSea. oa the incredibly flawed process being used by the 

Department of Energy - your purpose seems to be not to clean up 

your wastes but to convince the public that you have done a in 

Order to continue producing .huge quantities Of wastes at Sanford 

as the byproduct of weapons production. 

We. challenge the operative goals of the process undertaken 

by the DOE in releasing the draft .EIS.' Spokespeople for the DoE 

have said they wish to use this process to determine what 

are 

acceptable to the public 

TrsdeofẸS ore simply not acceptable to the public when it 

cornea to clean up and disposal of the vast quantities of toxic 

and. Iadioactive wastes dumped or stored at Hanford. We can not 

accept trading off either'. public health or the environment of a 

vast area of central Washington in exchange for saving the DoE 

money 

Ṅo private Industry could . seek to have the public consider 

coat 'tradeoffs' in the clean up of a toxic waste deep under the 

Federal Superfund Law (CERCLA).. By what right does the DoE 

consider itself subject to a. different standard when it comes to 

2. 

'2,2.3 

what is undoubtedly this nation's moat complex and 2 . q L . 3 

toxic waste dump - Hanford? 

We demand an explanation as to the weight the DOE is giving 

to cost savings when deciding on win place stabilization" versus 

an actual clean up and disposal of the wastes they Have dumped at 

Hanford. The EIS quotes from the Hanford Defense Waste Management 

Plan (1975) to state that the decision will be made to go forward

All 7. 

078 078 

N 

T 

3. 5.1.26 

RECEIVE() DOERL 

duL i8 X88 4879 

WM DIVISION 

with to place stabilization of wastes rather than actual clean up 

and disposal in a repository if the DoE determines that "short 

term risks and costs of retrieval and transportation outweigh the 

environmental benefits of disposal in a geologic mined 

repository.^ (EIS at vi) 

We cannot allow the DOE to decide that the cost of cleaning 

up the toxic waste dump, that they have made 600 square miles of 

2.2.3 central Washington into, is a more important criteria than the 

long term health of our public and environment for the eternity 

that these wastes pose a hazard for so long as they are left 

untouched or swept under a few feet of soil. 

The scope of this HIS is also inadequate in that it wholly 

fails to describe for the public the scope and nature of existing 

contamination of the soils and groundwater of the Hanford 

Reservation. Ignored are hundreds of contaminated soil sites, 

contaminated ground water streams, the chemical and radionucleide 

content of soil disposal cribs and even the high level waste 

tanks. Replacing the required description in the EIS of the 

actual contamination of the Hanford environment are the most 

.amazing public relations statements and terminology. Funny how 

the DoE has millions to spend on the PR for its defense waste 

management program but, cost is a factor in whether they 

clean up after themselves. 

Rather than inform the public about the true nature of the 

severe threat that Hanford wastes now pose due to leaks and 

deliberate dumping practices, the SIR contains statements like 

2.2.12 

this a to management practices at Hanford were shown ( in the 

1915 Environmentalnmental Statement for Hanford Waste Management and 

Operations ) to safely and effectively isolate the waste on an 

interim basis." (EIS Foreword page v.) - 

With Uranium in the groundwater; plumed of contaminated 

groundwater from soil dumping heading towards the Columbia River; 

500,000 gallons of high level nuclear wastes leaked from single 

2.2.12 

shell tank.; sail heavily ebn[amina[ed .nouns the tanks; 

Plutonium from Hanford in the air and soil of downwind 

communities) HOW DARE THE DOE SAY :"Waste management practice. at 

Hanford were shown to safely and effectively isolate the waste on 

an interim basis'? 

Only to the DoE can 30 feet of dirt and crushed rock on top 

G 

3.3.1.11. 

o[- leaking high level nuclear waste tanks be called a permanent 

'diction or disposal of nuclear wastes. But with the expenditure 

of enough PR money they go one step further and call this a 

^geotextile barrier-. To the public it's still nothing more than 

30 feet of dirt shovelled on top of the most dangerous wastes 

known to humankind. Putheraore. there Is absoluteley no proof 

that this is any mare effective at isolating these radioactive 

wastes from the environment than the Doe's literally, ae reel as 

figuratively, sweeping the leaking vast. task. under m rug. 

The DoE has excluded from the scope of the HIS any 

discussion of the significant technological and geologic problems 

with emplacement of defense high . level nuclear wastes in a 

2 

RECEIVE'; DOE-RL 

' euL 18 1988 

dO7P 

VqM 

geologic repository. The DoE has apparently violated the National 

s 

Policy Act (NEPA) both d to discuss these 

osignificant 

fg a secn issues and through deciding [o to 

drop 

the construction 

of a second mined geologic repository. 

NEPA requite. th e ion of an Environmental Impact 

p 

Statement pt10[ to ANY decision op t y lead CO adverse 2.3. 12 . 

environmental f which limit. the chof tea on such a 

decision. 

sion.. NEPA further 

ra quf res d tike of all relevantn 

environmental 

th information by the decision in maker when a decision 

with advverse adverse impacts or which limits future cb ices f ads. de. That 

a 

is a a 

exactly thenature off the decision made b y the Secretary of 

Energy in announcing h that there will be no second repast [o[ In 

8o doing, he has made the Defense Waste HIS a sham. He has 

.sad the option of a 

leaking 

clean up of the wastes in oi 

them. In shell high level 

nuclear waste tanks and the soil oft 

around them. In essence, the Secretary of Energy os decided 

these wastes are not gor e siy o 

in a because 

that 3.3.2.1 

there . is not room in one rRe for ȧll the defense fenssee wastes e 

as 

well as the civilian . wa at ea which moat de into the 

he 

repository. The Stlatte must Proceed proceed to challenge this f and 

demand that it be set aside by the Federal .kart. for failure 

consider the considerable environmental t 30 l ha zards of the n place 

stab( wast e e o , o shovelling feet of dirt on top of 

these Clean Option described in thi s draft EIS. 

Clearly, the Departmentof N 

E i roan i scared about 

Its Sec having violated the National al 

Environmental Policy Act when 

the Secretary of Energy male de th 

the arbitrary,capricious, blatantly 

political p 

total Th illegal i to aban d n the second 

m a It program. s The rthat of E 

2 . 

a 

1.1 

decision not only 

made 

It crystal and clear that the Dog 

intended ate move 

de io 

bl nd legal issues as the groundwater movement 

in th 

the basalt locks under Hanford 

stand in the way of Ha made 

selection an a high level nuclear waste dump in n he made 

perfectly clear that a total clean up of existing g sin sigle shell 

..tank wastes at deNE and emplacing t h wastes into a geologic 

wa stedry 

to oohed NEVER happen - and that t this SIS on the defense 

M8te9 in a sham. 

The DOE'S Michael Lawrence is now play( point man for 

Neared DoE, which been caught blatantly violating th e 

NationalEnvironmental co mut 

Policy Act. On July he released a 

bland new computation of the volume of wastes u and a denial of 

legal violation by claiming y is the 

23.12 r 

e rate of loading of the 

repository, not its capacity , that is most important.-This 

subterfuge does not arsons i strati ss 

Appendix C of the Environmental w tae S 

of rend - 

DOE document - chows vividly how the $ecretery Secretary [y and Lawrence are 

misleading the public and violating NEPA. That document estimates 

that there 

will u 0 metric tone Of high level aaste.£rom 

spent nuclear plant fuel 

rods root alone bythe year 2020. The maximum 

legal load for a repository 19 0,, metric tons. Lawrence 3.3.5.7 

admitahat there is already11,0000 metric tons at Hanford in 

3 

ti 3.3.1.11

€ 78 

wool 

N 

d 

3.3.5.7 


JUL 18 19BS 

tanks - 10,250 tons alone in the leaking sin Ilft% tht a n DOE 

Additionally, there is 6,500 metric tons Curren@@11 ^^cher oE 

facilities that must go into a repository. Simple addition makes 

clear that the DoE violated HERA by canning the second repository 

program and giving the shaft to Texas,Nevada or Washington State 

when we were made finalists in the high level waste dump lottery. 

Even the DoE should be able to add these numbers which prove 

Lawrence's math does not hold . up; even if the DoE made the rather 

sensible decision not to produce any more high level nuclear 

wastes. Without any new wastes there is not room in even two 

repositories for all nuclear power plant fuel rods and DoE high 

level wastes - the DoE doesn't intend to put those single shell 

tank wastes in a repository despite putting out this EIS that 

lists this as an alternative. This violates NEPA. 

3.3.2. 1 We challenge the decisision to proceed with a 

•demonstration" of -in situ disposal" for the tank wastes, for 

which the DoE requests funding from Congress in its PY 8 7 budget 

for Hanford. So too must the State challenge the dismissl a in the 

3.1.4. 1 HIS of clean up. and removal of the contaminated soil envelope 

surrounding the waste sites. 

We wish to comment on the failure of the EIS to address the 

2.2. 

q 

11 

.lean up of the chemical toxic wastes dumped or stored At 

Hanford. Any private dumpsite would have to meet the standard. 

and timelines of the Resource,COnservat ion and Recovery Act 

(RCRA), Superfund (CERCLA) and the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act. This EIS not only fails to discuss a total 

inventor y ing of dumped toxic wastes or a total clean up, but 

fails to discuss even meeting the same clean up standards that 

the owner s of any toxic waste dump would have to meet if the 

owners were anyone but the U.S.Department of Energy. We fear 

that the 'in situ disposal* or in place stabilization" option 

that the DOE seems to have already chosen by default for much of 

the Hanford nuclear wastes also condemns future generations to 

2.4.1.1 the exposure and groundwater contamination hazards posed by the 

chemical wastes - something that we ae longer let private dumpers 

3 .3.2.1 walk away from without cleaning up. The greatest hazard from the 

failure to dispose of the chemical wastes is, perhaps, that these 

wastes constitute the speediest transport mechanism for moving 

the associated radionucleides out of the burial ground and 

through the soil to groundwater- 

Even bad the Secretary of Energy not precluded the geologic 

repository option (illegally), the draft FIS would still wrongly 

lack a repositor y alternative for putting all all of the 

2.2.11 radioactive wastes -by volume - into ageologic repository. 

Instead, the repository option described in the EIS proposes only 

the majority of the wastes as classed by radioactivity would he 

d 

1 would remain in the tanks. Given that the geologic barrier system 

Is the "best available technology for disposing of wastes, and 

bra intent of NEPA is to require full consideration of a wide 

3.3.1.1 33. placed in the repository. Much of the wastes - still lethal - 


JUL 181W dn7^ 

VIM DIVISION 

range of alternatives, a true gelologlc disposal alternative 

should be fully evaluated.. Dismissing this alternative, solely 

on the basis of .cost, should not be a decision made by the 

Department of Energy. 

An independent Investigation of the efficacy of relying on 

the man-made barrier system should be conducted - given its 

contradiction of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's reliance On 

geologic barriers because no man made barrier can be expectedto 2. 5 . 5 

keep wastes out of the environment for tens of thousands 

years.The final EIS should include full exploration of o£ 

technologies other than grouting sad the geb-textile barrier, 

specifically the proposed technology described in the State of 3 

Washington's comments. The technologies described in the draft J 

EIS are largely untested and, therefore, do not deserve statue as 

the only technologies to be considered. 

Three recommendations follow on ways to improve the decision 

making process for the EIS. improving the process is necessarry 2.3.2.8 

to ensure that adequate public involvement and public confidence 

exist in the decision making process, and that NEPA is not 

violated. 

Answers to many of the basic questions about the defense 

wastes are Still lacking i What are the exact contents of the 

individual tanks y ( only the contents o£ the tanks in aggregate 

is known ); Now reliable is the technology of grouting in 

isolating the wastes t i the EIS states that "solvability of 

grout is not known IF How will the wastes be monitored, since the 

monitoring equipment moat puncture the protective barrier y The 

public must have the right to review and comment on the DoE's 

plans as answers to these basic questions are found. This is the 

last public hearing which the DoE has gauranteed the public. This 

I. not acceptable. 

3.3.5.4[4 

Another HIS is only planned if the data on these unanswered 

2.3.2.3 

questions exceeds the bounds of what is currently expected. The 

intent of NEPA, however, is to compare detailed alternatives. 

Thus, It is inappropriate for the DoE not to plan for an 

additional public input process.The public is being forced to 

operate in the dark without the basic information needed to 

evaluate the alternatives. 

A formal process of independent review of the fact finding 

process on these basic questions is also warranted. The DOE 

2.5.5 

suffers from alack of credibility with the public due to past 

mismanagement of the wastes at Sanford. This credibility was not 

improved when , at the defense wastes worshop k in Seattle, a DoE 

official told the public that all of the waste at Sanford could 

be dumped in the Columbia River/ and no harm to human health or 

the environment would ensue. Such an independent review should be 

conducted by both the Star and the National Academy of Sciences - 

with funding from a DoE • Superfund" style account. The DoE should O • q !1 

be required to set aside the clean up funds as soon as possible, 

lest they never be appropriated. 

/^ p 

3.5.4.8 

L L J

2 

x)'79 

080 

an'i There( Aye. —'t W/ RECEIVED DOE-RL 

Sea/e, wq., 987 oy- z.3Z5 JUL 181986 

06711 

I n 

WM DIVISION 

V-^ 41l Q ^j^ ^^ IV 

2 be%or_ fhafaHy s^'udy inddvin9 fbe 1:p11^-^^ 

l ^^^^ 

l 

I!4(E S 

1 fora3 c of rad/oacFiae weaterial5 'for d \ ( 

1 

I ^ lfv^l,,S'^^ût(j^ 

CY)6^ 

I 

Te" of i4oasaAA5 of years should look }o 

euth c^êc{'s ereal'ed, fble (k+nd Q^p^ ^J,,'^, ^-p ^j^ ` 2.2.6 

wwn aU h art flat old. KI(As of a.,04m,ÛVH.{;1SL^-2^^ ^s l n^l^l c,^^ ©^L^^^ Na k.. 

A- faskioced at tine llijesf level of ev5}i^^ \_ t ^ 2C^ 1 rLSS w1 [3 

C3 

techaolc^t^ 7tal+^ worlln^ and lastil^ wia}er•ials, 

Q`^r^ ^^ lln' 

^ ^^^ ^^ be ^^v^ ^ 

'have. laafrd $v3 l 0 9 and are in our xwa IG Y( ( V l 

,^ ^1 

lG^ aVv. 

3.3.5.2 ter. fhet{ne ^nMpme +tie Cron+io,, of sly 

.and 

G`^`^`^t ^/ 

IA 146H"5 woYLts of Scuipî.ir e 40 ^ ^ 

We 

!!_ 

v 

d^^S 4 OR 

- 

afe contain I 

am naclear uMtes In 

^ a "ram -- a ^Cê0.^ ^(-1'^ 

W^ ^ 

1 ^Q 

MI6 l 

of MW4teMd - Y-6ryabte - cL " 

W . ^L -,L^ a ^ n ea 

7oraê. ê 

0 

wasl'e 

I 

l0 

3.3.4.2 f 4 civilast{'vn3 W 

fu(^ ducan s i q l l@-G^S 

ôd I( V S.I ,..n 

f 

_ 

^^^ f^ 

slwLâu.-lwlnta of *tit' civilgmfbn ,. Z belive. + 

^ t ' L^JIM. 

^:. V\AoU)@ CMp,^,l^ Yu 

otr ea5fiw^ _nucl6ar tsbulo(o^^ 

^YÛv^D^ 

i3 in nod of 

Q ilM,^ ^G^Q 

`RECEIVED 

fee eq^!(d 

DOE-RL 

ance and dlsaPlrKe 'iwwill em-e ^yawi ids ^V 0. ^2Y Y ^^ JUL s 19^ 

a2 iK#at^gra àw Ft"e /^' - 

1^^ '35 i4, VQ 3^- . WMOroISION oaso 

V ^ ^ ^4eC^V` "" I s 3.3.5.1

2 

A rim 0 # 5 x 

ME 

o1 

_ 

Raebb Pat-WMlgacer. WaE^yWY.I.Ipup Yg, 1965 C11 

Òur State Is a Dumpsite' 

OUR STATE IS A DUMPSITE by Dana Lyons, Copyright 1985 

(reprinted with permission) 

I lost my job here fishing and opene d . up a store 

I buy and sell reactors, Cooling taxers, and lead doors 

We've got a brand new indust ry bearing fruit of finer taste 

We sell juice to California and get paid to keep the waste 

gfo ,f, 62°J 

/y z f -1 P! y 5. 41. SP- SO - WCEIVEIU DDERL 

YAW/ !f/oq-. 00z./ 

JUL 18:1986 ppgf 

ê^,.[,(i.d•r WM DIVISION 

.^,d...e.1 C'A w, 

Nuclear Report D' f/"Im ektl Pn' ,bran 

man d;:g n^+dfeume Overt 8enmr^ 

e re wbya—al ffint d ldbe I t 

R} 11+:• .,^, t¢ drceJwWWflI P. afFl [s lhi[ 

tlMademytAk reammended 

N.fil Ww,,d le.nld Mtmtli,. 

I,,,a 

bD 

CHORUS, 

4- Our state is a dumpsite, Plutonium 239 

.1 

4-41 

N 

E 

0 

U 

0 

Our state I. a dumpsite, just set it Over that., that's fine 

Cur state is a dumpsite, we'll take whatever you send 

Our state is a dumpsite, where the hot times never end 

We don't just make the power, we also build the bombs 

The dollars never atop. from Washington to Washington 

The other states all love as cause we rarely take astand 

They send us little presents and put money in our .hands 

CHORUS 

So now I ,. fat and wealthy caves my business here has grown 

I sell lamps that don't plug in and heaters for your home 

Progress and technology, for us they've were been great 

.We're singing here in Washington, the everglowing state. 

Our state is a. dumpsite, plutonium 239 

Cur state is a dual ' just set It over there . that's fine 

Our state is a dumpsite, our fate Se to mutate 

We're singing here in Washington, the ever glowing state 

repeat 

Record and come ette (4 song album on 12" record) availabl e . 

by mail. ènd check for $6.00 (includes Shippin gg ) tot 

Rai,diag Rocorde, P.O. Be. 45451, Seattle, WA, 98145. 

Please all ow four weeks for delive ry.. 

Nuciear Waste; 

Don't Bury It, 

Recyle It As Fuel 

by Marjorie. Marol Hecht 

6< 

Wlwlweallnudaw•wawe•i,e, As could be -riese • eom We Main 

Nally a valuab le resource. More than onelm 

%peranlorbe[o-bwlivane Pro' Wring s4 Mass br pearo yeah, 

duce) by 'I.n' random an be re- one of At selling Winat for nudear 

pence sel to be rcaed as unnlum or parer was m r ioted Was type, be. 

OWAtium WWI; only ,boss certnr cute s an clear tar mu wo uld 

FA 

oa or 37 0111"Aw W reel. Ais dee 

berevenakemm.,menmvaIL WO 

Nenran'icmenaandesuimNfw, mimlean, 

10 IoFf-4ugu[11%, NRlpi 

W195"Aa, Nwiom 

Nobel tabantory In 

dbneE funhe, [led 

reem';^ô; 2.5.8 

emend Me large 

unnedson..• 

Tmlae Ayes. 

tmmmplemensgations 

.1 d6- 

An all. 

mMletbewade 

.rasing number 

,Wdnu.s.go4. 

WarrNion As 

Iddevelonmm. 

fedlide a elm, 

e r ng 

old "Oulu, r. 

r au wage w 

Teasers, 

and by I", 

,dadal,Wr 

1-1-el waste in 

Nucle ar Repeat

081 081 


JUL 18 im 

hen, an tur naround rah rep0sho n,by den, rotunda, Coimmwainn or- .' omorkmandodnrtinuM MMON 

9fl5. mnilitudi n permitin IM, auto to Department of Fn.W tar geobg;b 

FRMabardorntl HroNOOlintenm ha re gene fuel and high barred nun, mniltlentgns. In abortion, them M1u 

reposXOrin not betaux of a"hadf- -hegm to three in to fie fi nal rcpglbry been ongu;ng unea rth ran the Boa 

nand dilfindues, but under pressure byl".

081 


JULIB1906 01 

Coming Up in 

FUSION 

SEPTEMBER-. 

OCTOBER 1986 

g 

ill note had a MMatlIWry W 35,1.1 

megacu n. IOnefelathequaddy 

MMIOM"isot o opet eatdefameal 

the eame.1. n l enm of Minm, 3.7 

x 10àigmegntioe,possament) 

mgetaniaeaolare MNlKWemal 

physi cal dimensions M the pmdem 

NI Me Slashing! wane fiom U.S. 


JUL.101900 

469, 

wM îIVISION 

Heel; and the en ire usemSir le euo 

romraNai ds a metal or de ran ge gomabn 

barrier. Mel ly, tlrenumNyis 

burled In aspeel aedimand .it In 

aginksgualforagietinop,vooank 

roA, asmnite.aMrelrrorma.n aaary 

tlwkl barrier. The UnOea seta W 

been mating wasmag gmelog dal for 

b-a 

N 

N 

2.5.8 

a Pasteur—The Father of 

opliral Biophysics 

as The National Space 

Commission Report: 

Ret urn to the 

Moon by 1005, 

Onto Mars by 1015 

• AIDS Reseaiah 

Breakthrough 

as What the Nuclear 

Eap d", Say about 

U.S. Reartor Safety 

• Fusion breakout- 

IatestAdvanres 

E 

gmokhasm Na ti onal laboratory and 

them bas been steady stream of im. 

pwernentiinMetttAmlogytomaYe 

lbewutem mmuse . 

I Thellquiireaddsmiked erithglrss 

M4 aria thenpouretl lino. Ii thiar 

sbinksc stand—i., mat 11101. 

high and If ro l cant In aiameor. The 

oresrer is Stated until the gl as s meld 

vM there It is ended, wMtla Oen each 

elan M t ern wane-1. Al 1, in the boitr 

disk glad. T ar needed Is then 

piked In anmMa baho,OfamWM 

LOOKING FOR 

Ja laan's 

ground OSK intake older major uelev SCIENCE 

Contribution 

wale. Hem, cement EIMnsts repdmesl1g 

g^BOOKS? 

Ante has p+nneena in nuclear Hous storage. At left, firl AM NMnnnon plant at Marcouls, when s1eN 

'la bs aefM ra4dmak+re YWed. dry N air[eded wel ts undo 

naliom, In. United So. Haw has noeommenial re^KKeniot 01nucher 

p lant el Mtims, le'., which mid handle. ghawn eOr eater Od Wdm win spere And hreaM pending rep 

To the SDI 

eeamelf.baasi. Transcript of a. 

Nuafar Ca. W Weld a mmmerei il ro. Ing p lant has dirt! M mNdetans Of willbeWllbytheerdoflMl9A ps. 

Tokyo mail nee 

prattssing p lant in Oh Ridge, Tenn., highlerel wile f ro m I's reprocoang Inaddilmotoanmmrtrosedlspem 

April 22-22 

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 

" the, thr ee plants Barnwell ladlllies low norage pooh ume 0 deferral waste f ro m Me Alb 

lot spent fuel. Other spent reel Is Sense progr s, n4,0l0 CUBIC triers. QLLOg WRIIf 

The Reagan aaminislnnon could 

hate resmea the Barnwell plant in area, A the turner plans where it This Ovate is ended! at gwemment fs . - tfuli 

aponsmef lap We 

1961, 

in 

but is wash the Child, Weer a genenlea, In wannfillea banm. Aron in Hanford, serif., Examine - B E/ILFra"I4M Tusl gasp Iomal 

toreador 'reael a e n k t aI Ip .men a a n . sea, Wee in Soule Grolna uld. leap. 

and Des 

C^ B00if5'B^(¢TS 

Beslsl°IUtlGR 

aWndan this F IopM p k. IM M . hod to M( Produces. The defense note FU all been repro V 

s tronger- sys tem so sunk in the Bytheendoll^,theewasanes vd ttheteauvemmentaper Record Shop 

dap no g hoselanoip lckupon mded4,W table mNemohitanl 

fuel ales rtpmeesringf dities. 

1M about Although the craned lspent ter 

spBA FREE, AYAGEi:AafoOUE Available holds 

Mse e major Inf rastructure deedW held, atarea at pent III." 

ASTgONQQNN 1ANK 

501 FEE for 8100 

nt p reietu. Reagan al reversed M Cubic mass. general ly .alrec4 Is only ghoul t Itudge of On Moore 

6 YAQ 

so replies pdItq of prodding hdenl la edeachyxan of detenae wane, It has a higher b url ^^ 

.lur br n ilhin cascara spent heel, Tire is rro probem in mn6noing aI ra6wAriry Ally heat output he- 

al Oau 

e' 

r lhedehnsearomisdlluldl Tree ^d-Z4 

Rlaie 

and agam made this the nsimesibiliel t osrospemfuelinth re 

er apolsfar30 

Telephone order: 

ewealiz;—^ 

onami g ual drillle'. in 3S ears, but xcoMMg Design. Depamentof Hergy estimalel1 met 

NpwWaF Wallet —1 of EMrp magnen, tM to 

(7021771-7100 

lnlenm defense wane has a Moadivity of 

V Bout4 Ring SUae1 

The ek,weal VSlky ndened, sludge roam efilWk at p lant silo I.lN meg gcvrkL"an me mamma- 

LessW, OA M75 

(708) EE7d601 

NWm gaPead atlflpN Iuly'sainet nese tJ 

H Iuy.Angun !Este 

rUfIDN 

WII pill be a v@ktlarynange me 

than. Ac cording to Use assumption! 

At WherioAgenq,aucbglnsisan eJ a G a 

Nable Mat even If placed In Cowing L J 

wakL 9t would eke Me Me 

to d6saHe away about 1 .11Ii., of 

the fork ed¢ nagehaglas.. 

There bare also lrnn kavarNam 

the preparation and tnnsponationof 

feel. Far eampk, Me mks br mama 

porting wok an p robably Me had 

made. 

designed mnkiden ever m They 

bed I:m ou ) films ma do by Hre 

Sandia N tronal labonmrin shmNng 

Fu&s N,o wok os4 eollidog fun 

'peed with a horsil y or crashing 

'no a wddaen stmeon. In all afnw 

do tic mad. she Oak emegea mar,

s 

083 

hn ANmm TmiwYmmWge4w lT o lk G. a FW U&Hqr d Pxpeg mu Vm 

Keri McRUgr To p1.%rrl d 8.e.p r llnratl. W..pmgtm 

tP.elsr Wmla 

Nimr(Wr^rh memmir b+umPO®ovhlu4 mE monoPoVbnemimumme 

aewmednvWni. ThsEL9 pmr4.mgYmduamplime. 


P) mcbPMOmmlmmdwlgilmwm.iw.xols 

JUL IS 1986 

(et Ihee.nPmWmdommwaaudmmimalemme 

WM DIVISION 

p) multi mb.ybm.ebnowe.ampmei.tieorm. 

bMaamm.^tlamm^n_m,^ma ,b:ibgb,W^M y 

3.3.4.1 e,mcww. we®aao.ugo-ve me IW by bpwAd,omuRebmwitlyemw.11m merma, m. 

[gmmlrvM mwr& .hu vaga e.WblletlbY tlb aimti0e eo®v"uY. Av imnna.naga: .^ 

nnemmYanaM mo.gofra md.emourmd btlq •. moRE.dmti.b i beig doami bw.r& 

Me haelWmw . d.s.mm. lq w.nm.kiq meloobeei ShmJtlM rwm. ^. made mntivmu.) 

WgAM bmDYO bwW..'HW.IIII •1b.MtNgg1V!'ptQ]m110WIY]q MYW MngmYgl®fG.tMi 

'dnimtlPo ge.i.mtl(mu bwah P.eb^mu.abrds tlipreldemiY wmbt NeYr.oq yam 

C 

2.5.6 r.lY>u i nq tlb .vt d eonpeiN. iu .^ r i.tagh a .ba. IYPa d F.imnu ae 

pweepneG V W ibeiM Mw.po of vm dmanm,mflm mJ dbvw.ut 1 webs. mE a mob 

feel sJm ami po'ati P..m.mgwN W mue imygvo4mm. bgi,me ImtlnmW Mnot WrcM 

hseutlWlwvbmmWlymtlweegY. .. _ - - .. - -. . ... 

^

4 7 

mm 

2.2..3 `7 

„ u,/z', 3 o.,^. ^F r£..a /....:.e...6„-s. CJe -..^.ez-'^ 

-^- ôP•JJrr6- e^ ^ cTU:,;^ mss` ^'..^4- ,.-..-c s^„f>..rL, 

2. 2.1 ®Ti^ '`^ ^^f ee ee.-. GY ....^,+-Y-,s:e.c_.e ,gym' ^4° 

' yifa0 L3-/N! f^LCC. 2Ri4. d ^G quvr-•/." / 3 Hh+.-I 


AL 18 9B6 

Conscience 

wMDIVISION aes4 „u 

un*^ a»,wu =vx r..za ai nne:os ^ ^za^sna»x 

%J 

Jvcy /r / /In 

T r)+E `7J0 L 

df e 3 FLOfML ^JJCtf 44. (/J ISK ^frUh Nny 4r 

•. 

Uxv "` ;I MY N Is 'Rtde A/LO {HOOP . / A. 70 ,L CO . O,LU/NAroa. Of 

.n AftE 

I//L l-ONSCGLNLC F TK•>< C A'(f •iJ / N/rK AYsa 

N 

w 

6E sptlft' Al 71o47 * n /fN419 AA L/u /R /y/y Fp,f, 

7NK gs fff.£ kde v,ocfV 4 c"4a f,, Of. Z, t 4w A+VD 

/D O7Wf A. yVS +t^ &ftu Or F EE MS E /bo/^r 6E(/W/JE 

IYIY AWL (Nyn LV[A r/U . A 7a-OTLST 17A"Sf- I*C 

U/a/LSN< E - AiA,. sr 0,K£V /u 71K 

7 1 C 560M.) J atA 

/ 

Tfft 1/RSMV/LAnO-5 wttle1 ^ *w 2Â.fSf uA ,37 7VPA7, 

2 .5.6 

h*Aj /CAGE /Wt, WrE "IOAcn 3£: eF TMf 

E.Uulao,vm /r A7' //AM/4A ,D A^v /Ecf£wNFAE /.v wr (JS. 

.RECEIVED DOE-RL. 

JUL 18 986 6DO 

WMDIVISION. 

PJE tp 3OCAT£ SntON7 .r- o%A,, £vr hemw ON, r.r£ ?"r 

OY /}.n£a!/a^ CIr-,-Sws 7r+ BR•/uf fv ErO m Mrx/ucr.E 

A•t- N •SN .srNA^-[ WNtcH Fc,9pZ 5 us A+VO rs 

e

084 081 


RECEIVED . DOE-Rl 

+U^ [ d X86 

Conscience Conscience 600 

WM ! V k O BOSS, WMDIVISION ^^. 

+vanom. w.rx e.szw so... vnsaim cznc nssan i,,, r e.nw x,w w.saim 

aos^saronx 

^^ 

WM OI ISI R'"^ 5O' 09sz (`/" 

r 

N 

A 

/r I$ CLEAIL 7 0 &)s 7hW Sr)4/Nf AStta/rfT 

^` 

NrceE 7E AS D7!♦E[ j erv5 > /NY/Y rDWies ffAUL PIrUTED D.+r 

Q"t .4)- 

//a AD / W/FE2E /l eWF-V 4 L RC)PLOCLrfED 

l'OA DSt IN 774S oDoenaN Â ArLLE9A 2. 1.3. ^ 

Wt9^N5 . IS 

A deN 3 wrtNr motet Fo.L r*l- 'A.O.F. Sor stela .t 

C//(//EI /S VN eON I

1 u 

f¢^$y 

Y$ 

q{ 3a 

$ E 4 ^^ 4? Yq îa'e 

4 

084 085 

RECOVED'DOE-RI. 

COnsdence eUL 18 986 fl6S ry} 

*c assosu =r n.a.rsa s•W RON.gv 02 /FGCrD l.v7lpi,. 

h"L^L1 C 4.JGS. 

w. &omor 7Tft 5 /kf}nlw)t: Daoe4sf 145 Ia GIL 

2.3.2.8 4"" * 1 `44+ E 

4L) Q 

p"mbT yv uJ AJ.ao.£3}"L /ND 3 f M^, 

Y 00 .Ir £O£A+'}G R-LÎe Se Ta7 a 7--- Are rvrt{ Cf}4.Le/a0YG5 

MD 'V 3V.C4A /NeIYLNi"3. WL W(.4L /LESITr ru fN 

-On.esn- " SVAV.f L. 

,/2 lt 4 wij 

/Yf0 2Y M 07-•K.. F 

9£A., t-4 fRfl7. 

zec- ;sr, ass? 

CURRENT EVENTS 


41.1 806 0 

,.^.. rninclON 

T.^1 

. WIII/1' 

it 

"Uiterl)• convening. II grills the reader like an 

1nmllec 1ual thriller. building inesarabh to a 

haunting conclusion.'"—Ihrshingtmi Pnn 

"no fur the U.S. to I ae nergr 

con onv m arc obvious and serious The haul: 

should be idely read and ducueseJ Lihrurr 

Journal 

"One wanders not whether it happened but Ron 

and xh,' nmvs of th, accident x'ns kept Sec re t for 

so long.'—The It oll Sven Juu•ruf 

"CAI ronvincine pictu re afscrious canlam inmion 

over a lane area .m the eamen. Si.." Lr the 

southern dusury eretheoeigmal Snviet milirar) 

nuclear indusW was situated.=A'anne 

I 

i 

' i s na r'Je-5=::f^ ^âs 

C7 

JIM 

Lei 

s 

or, 

i 

^s 

o"Q

I I - w mlM1n k11M ry ml nk a!' 

P1 i^t {_ 

Other nuclear accidents 

He Inl e/ ma lrc XIOT c I Olaol 

nceMlenl ^z0 m a In.. uri leE 



AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE RECEIVED DOE-RL 

- dUL 181986 

1. How tlld you learn of the hearings? - 

µm7 IVIS 

News p aper _ Radio _ TV Mail _ Rt ror 

IOk N 

Word of mouth .):._ Other (Please specify) 

2. Did You attend one of the Hanford Defense Waste Open Houses in 

Februar y or March? Yes _ Nom 

ODQS 

3.4.3.1 

3, Did you attend one of the Hanford Defense Waste Informational 

Workshops in Ma y or June? Yes b No 

4, Did you have access to a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement or the Summary? Yes No 

I—+ 

N 

m 

5. Please rate each of the following; 

. Very Goole Good Fair Poor 

Hearin g s. moderator [ 

Procedures for recordin g comments 

. , Ph ysical' arrangements. 

Process for requestin g to comment 


6, Please share an y additional comments you may have about these hearings. 

4,v'el 

nêlmr .[comb never 

^ I ^^ a m me sovin 

9lovnrcr 

IIM Sn kl ec 

/I IV_ly^ am xE IF rc i 

1, Any additional comments about the process of submitting written 

comments on the Draft Environmental Impact .Statement?: 

3.4.3.1 

nitl n Inrpe 

^ryvTM1ni ]CSlry ry^ 

lin,i's In erc ypy off 

ail ^q:.:%'f^N^^r 11V 


THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.

CIE 

M 086 

S^nr . Le ^ 

/ ^ `r'dtl2 



AUDIENCE _QUESTIONNAIRE 

RECEIVED DOE- RI. , . 

JUL IS iM CV?(' 

W Hoe did you learn.of the hearings? 

Newspaper 3 . Radio 3 TV — Mall — VVIARN15HA 

We rd of mouth L^ .Other (please specify) 

2. Did you attend one of the Hanford Defense Waste Open Houses in 

Februar y or March? Yes No I— II 1 

iÎ 

RECEIVED DOF.RL 

JUL 1 8 1986 Jd8(° 

V3 IV DIVISION. 

F-VJ SsL fs(ÎN^ss ... 

EVeN 1f• oinsrc sacs c l Lz=ss q'eu,,we ^êGy T41''=a DI k 

F\ 

A`WY U=ts-r_' BcrC- Th y wuy A2EN^7- 

.^0.(^ 

I -Twwr- NucLEne wTTaPous rIR.G > valJ VmR lIZRs- 

$PC"`Sl6Le `S^LTÌ s+l 4UJ ( M5Aa `m4ti "JeNGy. 

hlb (AJW wlu Ate.. ^^roe2 ^Czaan -Ti+wsa- J'm p L.y TWa "T 

?v^ sxaar- s16wT-D Da A Iaa s. We Ape: ou ALLo , 

2.5.6 

N 

NV 

3. Did You attend one of the Hanford Defense Waste Informational' 

Workshops In May or June? Yeq — L No S LLKE - 

R{^ts

---- - -- ! 

^G^ 

^ -- 2Z^S65 tiro ^ r =^ ----- 

_s,-.^ -^ 3 7^^T -- «^.iTi "ô ssl f7'^1 S4Fr' r, t ^; 

-------------- 

/ 

^. 

jd y ak ^'V3'. N'r^.J^^z.- 

jr^-^£Jy z.i-l,-'•---'-yr-^ tTa -?,J /2r.3z LrLi__ 

- ---:--^`---- -- ---------- C7hz: d 

-------- --- -------------------- 

--- -------------_____^._.__. 

^=^J- w 7bPs-^^ -sryylr` -3 e£^ i ` 

3Q' TL ikLL°-£?t!----E fY'I''k^6i-n(dIII 

,0 

co 

N 

.-a 

f/ Ili. JVV 

q^YN 11,ô -Îm 

31MU 3NONd 393F1OQM 3^1tlNO^ 3NAN 

33I^ 3NCHd 583tlIIC6 3M 1 NEJI^ 3FItlN 

aae rosy of Patlolaaap A rfnl uaaO l&A 

• aua.uouaua aVi eo,i (eigl+a 6111 

iov se4 A6a(ou4aa} .1.11da,dde l.,, 

£ r G raaA a w s •a 'Fi —14 ae -assn ,canna ao. se..oaa 4 .....I.d . I.Ps iuoo nl 

a ou 1 3111 aAb.au3 10 avaya+dab ra.apa) .V} a6an paub,S..... aya aN 

uo36uF4ssN u .aasbya... us u.Y'Ad saM ....... 

p.oAMeH aa yl la pa i .l o; Apauf. 3 • asses .g fln. Ao f.s odlfp Pue abe.ais 

o f OFSVOdsa ♦ W aaooapa 4 1an 4a.oN aS3 Ped a4 4 Ao sluap !sa. aVa aN 

^ a^ NOISIAIO WM 

q - , alt'.( C809 

ANOYI1931 3itUM 35N3J30 1MOlNtl 

8 i lNp 

•,le," off 1H-30a f 3Amctm 

',fa+ayo+Faaa +Va .o aY Pdojdde s}ya 

a3 e tosF oa padorana O A ffnt u++4 }sR }o. s+y Rb... .... aa+iadd,dde . o.. y s r C 

t++A ...s A6 .... s f 43 }+ +is.M o+Pnu 1P a6.aoas iusu uu d . +pf avda f Y G G 

l o u ( 3661 

+ w u3 l 0 3Vae)aYda1 (s.apsy +V} +bm p+ub F/a+pun ryl aN 

• 4o36. yq..N vaa4 b8"..s uF ..F...... M a+a PnN 

P.oAu+M aVl a. P a a. ô f Ap.u(e acs+ ..alanV {o f+sodsFP Fui +b+.o}+ 

+ f p F b.. .. ..... FSU a43 +N 

NOISIAIO ViM 

AN^LII1831 a5bR 3873za pMOdN,q isco go 9 i 111f 

IN-300 03A13038 

490 

4so 

$ Z @`' _1 E

1' _ k e .. §} ate¢ ,^ 

Ell 

N.=CEIVED DDE-RL - 

JUL 18 

0 . Dom' HNNFPR QEFENSE WASTE TEDTIMDNY 

µR1 DIVISION' 

Me the residents of the Pacific Northwest advocate the responsible 

star.,. and dispos al of nuclear waste alread y .. located at the Hanford 

M.cl..r R ... 11.ti.o 1. South6bstern Amahington. 

He theundersi gned urge the Feder al Department of Energ y (DOE) not 

4 td c Sider Pertinent .tore,. of 0...... ... to at this ties..' we feel 

33.5. . 

tnat th appropriate tecnnology has non yet nee. fully developed to isolate 

is ma terial from the en viloh.m.t. 

/^. 

DOE-RL 

,UL 18 WIS 00gj HHNFORD DEFENSE MRSTE LESTINOtjY 

µT1 DIVISION 

NO the residents of the pacific Northwest advocate the responsible 

storage and disposal of nuclear Nast# already located at the Hanford 

Nuclear Rr... vatic. in S.uthOmstern Muhington, 

M. the undersigned urge the Federal Depart ... t of E. gy (DOE) net 

to eon.ld.r pa ...... t me ..... ' .f nuclear ... tr at this Yiaer .. we fame 3.3.5.4 

that appr opt let. technology has not yet been fully developed to i.ol.te 

this material itch the envaonaeee. 

NAME SIGNATI ADDRE59 PHONE DATE 

SJ_^ _ ^---r!"" -'d- --------- 11Y^'ac L/ st` va-------- r_?_^YS__Z__!-sue' 

STJ 3_/'^_^3A.cl OL 4t v -^' 

-------------------- 

OLy _w- __------ "L{=^^ 

_ALu 31.hCn:r

p 5 

YM, 

lîrJ • 


JUL 181986 0:,B9 

•oa I WMDIVISION 

8"P71r, lTtG - 

Aia44Ma 

ealtnfaetlwwm aw. 

w+^ :^ REC:;:cp DOE-RL 

J8L18I988 odg9 

VIMDMSION 

N 

iA O 

82AllfKRW FOR DA 20 MMMNG 

Joly 15, 1986 

1 raaoce with at aomuetry Sta[e«vt on Disarmament,` 

and in 

c 

on ce 

rn for the health and eeviroumut of the Nortbeesq 

end thevoold copwity, - 

ne Sisters of S t. Joseph of Peace urge that: - 

2. 5.6 i. The S-Reactor he shut do we itmeafately; 

2 .2.1 

E. The Plecooiver-uranium Extraction process and all 

production of weapons grade pluessi m cro wn; 

3. There uob be a ucle astecowpository at Hanford; and 

4. The special isotope facility be elimipated.. 

2.2.13 pfually, we saw it as ea st important that there be an independent 

¢eradication of all Hanford OPezatiauc. 

awJrn wr..r- - --WAA d7... yr.,. 7Ae.e :. —4, 1 r wta.alfi, ;- f4ri r^ 

,71 e. L,r;.l ..! ^.a,yy. at,a d' -,,- ..,.,.y,r u x a PP,.e,a ne l`"'""' 

W, Ga,I&3 a..J P&...-,...r ,f s..,6 ...aTaw:L , y. a.^ ee3 d^ pa35:......,.^, - 

w;l &e , 7e .Vp Ra Pwaf -t' .j 

71,.,, --U r73 

1, n..G:(Et a..npd 6 As 

^Y!r'a!n p.el. a Aiuua...a,. ;exPG'r.-/t êra.JaGl.w a La.e: %W d'A .4t 

J Jdc —&w.4 g mt cmdih^wa. +^.m..% wuAa^. 

+,ynr, a..^..y k a.âA : ma.P L..e ,,,,,:ae 'm^ ,.s.,.A n ^°"'" f 

x .e..tG a_ 

yw 3 ?P?u .•an ,.fm G 1ru wA al^.w6 rlu, 

iw,,, sou it< u,.ddY j.w,.J ipx;. t.at ..: its. ruYAYt.e 

N/e a.e Aid 71-r ftr6-aGu s.-d NP.+L ,.-h &-.-V a..w„y 1(..-.ta.. a, A_ 

.awdt.(A^ ",f— Nt Ga..e A4e„f A:, Lane, ;. p71w. pus. a-.1...: wit., r.. r4A. i 

Wt.T w d^^ ...f^,a., o7tw - -%. h w ..-d 16+-+n ...«.+.«w .< -P-, _i., 

Lawn :....tW.. feeo:.., a,4 .aY^ d7Aa.a, ..e7.ati.^ 'o.»Av. Pe R.... ", /3^dl^dd ^: 

Janie S. Rafcblis CS;P 

Director, 

Office of Justice and peace 

-Sisters of St. Joseph Of peace 

The s h tem of se l pb ei Peare SI lemmt D t 

me 

W., he Ce a (II a St Jonah 1 P hl I 1 c mu"Y. wbhaY deel.ee w. reel 

1 e She les hoo ad deft Y N 11. u M i NR ; nal: Y .f m.n dn4selbv. 

W art 1 tN • (1 ( d b bt le 14 ra t week .1 w6w.t4y wi neNes .ad Mben 

I 1. .. ;amnnll" N . verih.ed (nhfen[n, N wdne -a ad . wasa dnlnrtles .ew. 

f+,a.7 7l-te weua. A"'.A . a7 d-- 

Y 72;e .. e-dl i,—, .:.d.w 3ef ar p,.aulNfs.,gtr...... 

Jc n,l, La. ,,,_ 12. L-4l ad WP/,SS 4,— —a ayP mX, a-d ne,; a.ean..a-wo. 

7th Gd 4. !„assn aA,; 7' a a f^ 2.5.6 

"`^`.^J'^f ^M .pA fi n.. ^.r.e t.,^. n.td ^, !/n4,d, at7a7+w ap.w^ 

v z L aWad— 1 a^P°^ rr^^ —Ma r.;e P"°y ,n ^^ 3.3.5.2 

'.... 

I 

3i, MAFY P#MNGNAIE 1853 gWP U WAY. PA WX 248, DE 1. WASHINGTON 9gW3O24e 206 454'S

M 

1 t 

2.3.1.14 

3 .3.1.1 

2.1.9 

Mary V.-It lin And.'.- 

6844 30th Avenue N.E. 

6eattlq WA 9B115 

July I5. 1986 

Testimony on Nuclear Defense Waste 


JUL 18 1986 x4i 

V/M DIVISION 

TM1e forty year old accumulation of noel ur waste at Hanford 

presents a n wooly difficult problem far which a eft 

t echnalap 1 offer. no completely effective solution. urHowever, 

this defense waste is cjust a mall part of the total nuclear 

rite problem and cannot be considered separately. All 

radfo.etive ..at.. are alike in their oang.roua potential, 

whether their origin is weapon production or power plant 

generation. 

The Department of Energy's mistaken idea that we rid 

ea lees of any of this deadly waste by burying it i 

underground vaults is a carefully perpetrated myth. In fact, 

burying the deadly garb.,. 1s really goat a form of storage, 

the only open option at this time. Whether the material i 

defense .mate or power plant waste, it will still be the,. far 

the next 10,000 to 240,000 year .. .... ibly a ..Limp it. revs, ing 

influence in ways that our most brilliant scientists have not 

yet imagined. 

Considering the violent geological history of this planet 

and the lxk ensiva longevity of radioactive material, the plan to 

bury nuclear wastes in underground repositories is 'absolutely 

3.3.1.1 mniac. a 1. Even the moot carefully studied gaologi pa! site c n 

ever provide the required; l0{000 years of guaranteed* 

predictable s purity against major geological upheaval. 

generation of deadly wat.. which will affect our planet 

i 

The Hanford site I. an entially forever -new w - having o difficulty 

especially poor choice for 

m 

underground repository. Studies of the possible interaction 

2.1.1 between some very hot waste and the basalt rock formation yield 

vidence ofpoaslble calamitous problems. Future earthquake s . 

could easily shattmr rock formations surrounding unding an underground 

repository and could open up now channels for. groundwater under 

pressures of as much as 1,00 0 . pound- per square inch. This 

pressurized water Could begin ax,vin, through the waste vaults 

and t .... d the .urface. According to U.S. Geological 

Association Hydrologist 8111 Meyer, a yen without the 

precipitating influence of an arthquake the p .... uris.d flow 

of water in underground aquifer o may be pervasive or three 

dimen... h.l. that f oving t ... Id the ..'face a well a 

horizontally. Considering the potential of pressurizedat—, 

the Hanford site . % proximity to the Columbia River Would further 

emeeprbate an already catastrophic situation, possibly creating 

a widespread nuclear wasteland in the Northwest. 


JUL 181988, &Oqo 

VIM DIVISION 

Becauo the Nevada and Texas sites or ... M' different but 

equally serious problems, some type of aboveground monitored 

retrievable storage syat.m t s to be a viable and safer 

farm of storage than burial in mdeep underground repositories. 

containment 

Storing the wastes abovegr.und in specifically designed 

fac111ti.. woultl enable m hita,ih, and control. that 

would be impossible if the waste w oremoved from human control 

by deep burial In rock formation.. eYA e lso. Monitored Retrievable 

Stol.0...old be less ..penatve,. construction would be easier 

construction antl woultl not Fequlre ..cliff.. of human lives • undergrountl 

probably ..old, 1 1 could off., greater safety, and 

it could be located anywhere, not Just in politically convenient 

places such as Washington state. 

The most important tl ante,. of this Plan. however,. is that 

it .,form time to evaluate thoroughly the concept of underground 

burial or even to develop new solutions:. TM1e Department of 

Energy should then no longerfeel ...1.1l.d to declare Hanford, 

Nevada, or Texas suitable sites for repa.ltori.a when the.. 

sites have not even been adequately studied. I strongly object 

to this precipitous action which shows callous disregard for the 

safety and .ell-being of Washington Otat. clk ;sane. 

Although this monitored retrievable storage systam offers a 

nably •an. disp ... I method, the really critical issue 

amain- a ue threat to our entire planet. the continued 

3.3.4.2 

proliferation zofnuclear Weapons and power plants when there is 

2.5.6 

eatly no truly effective way to Fltl a or planet of the tleatlly 

rites. The very future of our vulnerable planet depends upon 

the r solution of thisissue. We continue to .proliferate the 

storing the ..at. of just the past forty year.. What about the 

next forty years? What about the next century? 'Does our 

Manifest Deatlny" includ. the construction of Monitored 

retrievable star.,. facilities from "tea to'ihini., sea". a sea 

poe.Ibly shining due to radioactive ]um ineacencaP 01 a e to 

convert our entire planet into. gigantic nuclear oe .story, 

burying our hum.. .... along kith the daftlU ptl vewaakes 

saw ... led uby Par failure to ... th at . on? 

Currently there a ultimately. satisfying an 

s to 

the.. q ... ti.... - Untile arompletely n 

affective ma a found 

to rid our planet of atomic waste, our pursuit ofenergy from 

the atom ui entirely i Even apart from the possibility of 

literally burying ourselves in nuclear waste or destroying 

ourselves by nuclear war, it I. probably just a matter of tim. 

until we experien ce at leastôns American "Chernobyl Syndrome-- 

2.5.6

65a9 -5w - EBS 

(F.4 a 3a qo9 'ax ) 

Z'S°£'£ 

Z'b'E'E 

SP.Aau a c,AT -- aavd. u4 .9uoieq Peada4p .}sax iFaPUN 

:eaydao}alHVs 

and Fq pa}oa }off FpeaxT. e[ V1sa"1 . eyA 4at4n mou puµ wioc a4A Fq 

m.A..S .. mo ;o Ano Idena a4 it Tx .Masi Uo4Aaryex Fw m}n; ay} 

oiuT eiT4o ;o cpu .c A io; Pam}SUOm SSe, . eq uana .. }t •aiwF 

..TM- q xd; uaaq soW ul A..,d Pue swap e Td A w Woo w aQ 

tivP VT... -- 4Aia,A v4} wdu .T[S4vnoP. '- vei}ad, oS PA TT 

4gad w Woo 

• aAevx.,du xo; vavtd.Pm}ev 

Ftiva.oxTnw w ..}T 'afvaq uvonV m3 v;ac vQ 0A -TAe[Pax Tl—gq P 

HuTPNO4 4ana od} svy A'.a wo,s. xeioe a4} bo Aiad aNS -oo, .VA 

pw anuap wax}aq}Sgio av[oa a ui aeexd}a pw tlA AxddewxA m; (ndu 

3V8N a4QSsw; FRea4UyavA) 1dvmadvde FwiavetdxaAU4 paAaadOateA o} 

A4 wdewi} Pw AS4u0 4AxBi not o} e}aen ey} AxodewxA 'E 

ea.ia oA w v des.. pw • AVepu,gf • a;as •aigaSTex 

anal 1-T ex c..A -0 vry}N }eyA d mv. ..a.,avvW adadaaxay PuotAmN 

aA 4 ai g4ssdd . w od... ds }w®Tda4 dy FTAw9iTTP eyxon •z 

PnaSx}ai pw eutxu14udv Pvno.9 anogv io; s..."U. 

uS }; Psa pw aiaix eq4 F;SawTB '9uTaq e.[A eql xd; 'T 

,axoii o 3 w aS vdTAntoe aW4+we FNa eyy 

N 

M N 

a To. id; .nay ax amVdeoiQ ayA -- Aauetd ary} vo aayx.fw aia.x 

.To. 3o a9axo}a AvavvaAd iapivuoo tlA ewvvT Fie}nioge e4 }I 

vVdaom}s vql oiuT Kav4 

eaoumTon gft.,A pw • Aena c yAagp ay} wpw wVA •w}}oq uaeod eyA dA 

FtPn}wn.. ai.mrye pw uoTw a s.n 49n0x4}. xPe a 41 mot[ etwtlw ;o 

epwa(wVA woo pataFdax vie smoAe UaQxw venq •}veatd ." .. wie 

Ana Fw FS}vawmaed aieias4 oA aSgT..o dd, aT AT • cAValw 9.19usya 

Fq PA av;;a FS}4.iavdd puv paAaawoa-m}vT aS Suew4xSnue i dt9 

uT w.-T. Hans }v4A v.Tpo}. PAww e i4aw mdx[ mdvy aA 

926T 'ET 41Pr 

MCIA 80 11 .9uy. . Atl 

T" mdg '0 'd 

NOISIAIO WM 

I—IM 1 x —a 

/bw qN S S lnn 

zSE66 adAeama.n - p Tl;T8 

BSS -d 'o 'd 

l8-304 6!3A1303i1 m aJ 

Tim .di + .a S-a 

anv-lim 'Y'FI -> 

ill'.. .444 1. uageavup 

a44 do;* Pue •u0ipea-N .4 4 de}+ •+Auatl +.nod +a+tmnu ;e 

uPFian.yaueo ryi doi. • uod..n +..tuna 40 u0 x ld.a4 TIOUd 044 dogg 

i.... g,,.. +Id.F. a t P.a—Id.. .aq u' p udll— ;0 a m 0 .u.. 

Fiue .41 '.J s Âaen .nF Ae.OFP.0 1. 4 4. F AFt.su a 4 4 Buiaq 

Fq „du Thu F4A le a.p0w„ 4.04A .duels an 4.44 awFA. aF AS 

• .4dadlsw;wO tlatalt . ldun P, ... A Al F+P soli 

n Pu. • tlu pyu F4A ;e sapow ., no aAws Bu F4AFU.na 000 uel0 s.4 wo Aa 

•. 4 1 fe d nad P.4 ... I.. . g liF p i•+s.adaa uF.A.0 F3 A iag tu °tl 

n BuFLiq.yuoa aF -.4, .4% Iwe A. . a 4 4 BuFiiediu0a Aou a ... 

.. Ajquaa.ud a.n.0aq .4 n ,. un0 uF aq F.. F4 1 IT q Ysed %T41u• 

uo F+uan 

u.nmtl a4 4 u.4 4 +Aa.ye tluFiswW.p aiow wn. stls41.0 4 41 n 

NOISWOWM 

LEIS 

Y 

r^c 

+raj ` .:e 

C^jy-

t^ 

092 093 

Olympia, July 14. 

19 

Wa. R"C'(VLO DOE-RL 

July 14, 86 Department of Energy 

JUL 18 IM 

dagy 

WM DIVISION 

Dear Sirst 

If these protective barriers you mention are such good solutions 

to caring for the nuclear waste, then use th is method to dispose 

of the wastes in each state that Produces them. 

RECEIVED DOE -RL Dberl.tt. La unstop 

JUL 18 1986 

Seattle, 

S9BW6. 

60q,6 ÔQ 

WM DIVISION duly L„ 1986 

W 

Transporting wastes thousands of mile. across the country does 

seem a very dangerous procedure. What are the safeguards?. 

No more SNEAK attempts to route wastes through the state of 

3.4, 2 , 2 Washington, such as the rods from Taiwan. And the Department 

of Energy was going to .end these materials theough the state 

of Washington without notifying usv 

I fear that there will be eventual leakage of radioactive wastes 

2 .1.1 through th e basalt rock at the Hanford area. Anything that jeopardises 

the purity of the Columbia river is indeed dangerous. 

Isn't there a type of rook. somewhere in the U.S. that is more 

solid than the basalt of the Columbia river area? 

3.3.5.2 1 don' t believe there are enough optima. The ones proposed 

do seem skimpy. 

2 . 2 . 1 

Ye., it's time for a permanent solution. The forty-three years 

would have surely been long enough to carefully study the enviro 

u ant and its strengths and weaknesses at Hanford. I don't 

feel that careful study has been made, and if not, start in now 

to make. in-depth studies and KEEP THE PUBLIC. INPORNED. 

Rich Rohm 

U.S. Rapt. of Bnsryp 

Riohl.d Operatims Oftina 

P.O. Box 55D 

Kchlar,C, We, 

Rear Sire, 

a... don't damp scalar acts at Henfo -e - 3. 

Perb.Ps Nevada if me ot bar smear. 

Hmzrard. 

And, plaeme ead prodaatim a plutonium at 2. 

Oar.. state a Vaebington is still b as ically 

A virgin state - love help Lt stay that say ae lone 

se we eon. 

5.2 

J 

Sls((rsPlJ1 

jj[(``^^{{ 

Respectfully, yours. 

Cmm]N.te Ilewtetop 

Go. Penes 

(@s.) Bath Do ... rd 

2016 E. State Ave. 

Olympia, We- 98506

ut. 

oal '095 

RECEIVCD DOE-RL 

W 

JUL 18 1986^ pu'/Jma'^^^q 

WMOMSÔN-fJ.,PQf!d, '/>'^ /S July It. 1986.. 

145 3 END xalten/EIS 

^^ t -"C"D/ 

US Department of Energy 

,y ' Iic hlnna Operations Office, 

U 550 

L^ Ricnt and, un 99952 

REINED DOERL 

JUL181M a6f5 

WMONISION 

Dear I. Holton: 

`q^,,^^^^^, //////^^^/// 3^ 

^4^N-o This letter is in se8arde to the Department of Ene rgy'.a Jaly O • 1 • 1 

15 public hearing. to Seattle on the DEIS .fos. d lsposa. of L 1 

i/ 

date... was tee aC the Hanford Il i 

•!— //'^^^^^^^„ 

3.3. ,5.2 bJ^ !L 'Y"^r'— 

I oppaaa Me ie uae of Hanfasd sa,. p y f d f 

', ^D 

oasts ee11 as xist M1s wa 

3 1 1 ba 

star age 

.Pas 1 sages of existing tan 

v te t H f d t th C lv i 

+crz! Aivter p e that the basalt formation at Hanford cannot 

y 

Cain LF themcompounds eGr an ivtlefin its ptd of t.mo 

JC! ALA '/^ threa 

or increased u of Hanford far 

waste nmen 

peace 

ê 

a 

^/ 

threat a xo the int g ity of to natural Sr m It alsoo 

p.... .says d... 

to le 1 1 of en camn nett 

aoxnst taam frm o a HfCo 1 n already conta naced 3.261 3.2.6.1 

d,y l>L ^ fisheries be a cart t higF ] i. eat. t.ca ,. ad 

uaetes aula art g tent. ID thr 

polluted s of 

p faue sa C.lumUis liver 

et 

la 1 a ac our age .,art 

Y 

y of it xh h has p e CGor. ecoram lc b on 

OQO /py 

i the commun 

t tea of tM1 Columbia AS Gorge. 

I the Department of Defense to look elsewhere for vaate 

t age, or better still to investigate arti m ens of 

^/ / ,^^j3 Q g this ge 

nuclear threat from future ge ne raat aone. a 

/ J Sincerely, 

/,/mss,.-raj 

â+s 

W ^ /aoael 

Daniel Spatz 

11 S p ow Lane 

OJ.^ Units Salmon, WA 98672

7 - 

Ej 

09 

_ - oog17 

Q97 

9052 39th Ave: SW 


Scaly 19, 1986 

Rich Holton 

E(5, Department of Energy 

P. O. Box 550 


Dear Mr. Holton: 

We are very much opposed to development of a long-form nuclear 

aete dump in Ne Richland, Washington area. Me reasons axe 

2.1.1 

n sue and too obvious to need restatement. 

Your. sincerely, 

1.1 

N 

W 

Mr. and Mrs. Robert H. 

Ferber 


1.1 

JUL 18 1986 0o9G 

VJM DIVISION

e 

1• 

m 

a 

88°.18 f !U, 

1012 a1w.V ' ter 

3. 


JUL 18 1986 

JO a^` 

I `.(J • y-{ y{^ - / ^^ S VIM DIVISION 0094 

ILI 

3.5.3.6 

CO/ 

s H eb.» s 

a g v(c6l .YO.,P ... 

^^ cJfl • 99n3s,",Z 

w rn 

2 M= 

o E3 cars s 

oz ^s slo 

?Q .. 

- 

— 

CG'L'^: C^^ ^.e. L^tt.—FxLGCF 

^ 3.3.2.1 

CJC^LU-4 ' • L'2 CG^^ 

afu^4, µ,.HQ cz^c .â-^Pc ^cc^7-,,^ , âag.P 

ij 

î9;.3 fi.O^G c 3 _ row•. w4^— 

12 i0^, f 

/J 

SesY^le^ 'vJ;} I6//S

. 

'^ ,. 

^ ^ std a 1':p 

099 100 

July 1{, 19tl6 

JUL 18 'pB5 ^p 

6d99 JUL 18 IM 

U.S. 

U.B. Dept. er Energy 

WM DIVISION 

3001 Mow Vû WMDVLSION 

operations 

ympi., .S:.gw 

Richland Op 

P.O. Box 550 

Richland, WA. 99352 

Office 

_ 

-- 

^ l (^^ I^' 

be" gym) , r+ vt.ât, 1 

Ol W. 98501 

.^/ 

7 / ,d {b4 

0/00 



(.J 

V 

3.3.5.1 

3.3.5.2 

Mr. Sallee; 

Z w ti 4 'Im e wl.r - .{ 

to leakaga-containment.. The media would have me believe that my choices 

bf" O' a^ tiv h(urfk+.ac^ hc 

narrow to one point: Where *hall my great-grandehildra¢ expect imminent 

u 

Z have not vet anyone, of the deans* of people I've spoken With, 

y"(jT{, .n p,^ ^^^^,^;,,.;I d 

ew ^ 

3.3.5.1 

including my father (who is a retired Scale, engineer with 35 years of 

_Y 

experience) who dislikes or disapproves of my idea. It you find serious 

flare in it, please let me know. 

My suggestion is to remove tae Waste in Space Settle atop-otfe at 

a geosyncnrenous satellite whose only purpose I. to contain this seats 

until, When loaded into . shuttle SC's a., it I. blasted off into the 

Son. The Sun's gravitational pull Would take over 1. a Pew years and 

minimal control in all that Would be necessary. Shuttles take off for 

lighter reasons t es t this. Room systems could run the satellite. They 

can put care together;tney could do this Job. Very little danger to 

humane on the Space Shuttle flights since exposure in limited, if an y 

would Deed to exist. And, we would as rid of It forever. 

Thaix you for allowing me txs opportunity to help, if possible. 

$..y.u^.^., 3^0a^c 

` ^'0/ 

T.D. YSliiame 

9UU north nth 

Renton, WA 98055

Im 

July 15, 1986 

USDOE, Richland Operations Office 

-Aten 

P .O.B.Ox -Ricn Holtwn 

550 RECEIVED DOE-RL 


JUL 18 W6 110/ 

Over Mr. Molten. 

VIM DIVISION 

The following are my comments on the Draft EIS- Disposal of Hanford 

Defense High-Level. Transuranic and Tank Wastes (DOE EIS-0113): 

Comments- Hanford Def.... West. Draft EIS, 

The Draft EIS is well written and easy to read. The alternatives 

presented cover all possible options. My comments are based on the 

following facts and observationai 

2.3.2.12 

1. The existence of the Defense Waste on the Hanford 

Reservation, under current conditions, presents no hazard to the 

public. 

2. Assuming that no waste is g enerated fall operations are 

p shut down); that the sits i% monitored; and that the public is 

(p exci uded, as at present,. there is no hazard. to the public. 

00 

g3: There is no tional. incentive to recover . the Real Estate 

2#5, 1 val use of the Hanford Ste. Hanford will always be a controlled 

4. The largest quantity of radioactivity, as indicated in Table 

2- Page 1.11, is the5r-90 and the Cs-129. With their ^... rox. 30 year 

5J half-life, time is in our favor. The Waste produced in ending WW-II 

has al reatl, p....d through eno half-life! (Note that the table is 

somewhat misleadin g in that the plutonium and americium decay through 

ry / Ions chains. The radioactivity of the Eau ghters must be sidered in 

estimatin g te Hazard Index of the parent plutonium and americium.) 

3. ` 28 

3.1.2. 

5. The plutonium and americiumlocated in re1 tively small 

areas; the chemistry is such that they do nof tend to mi g rate from 

their fixed p ti.o the tl 

6. Removing 980 of the radioactive Materials from the Hanford 

2.5.7 J Svte will result in minor improvement in public Hazard. Hanford will 

remain a controlled area, and we now have a second controlled 

contaminated site. 

2 .5 . 1 ]. Thar. f ....enable, logical acener3o for essum in9 loss of 

institutional control in the year 2150 or at any other time. 

Under thane cosiderations the following conclusions regarding the the 

proposed alternatives can be made. 

I. Geologic Disposal— Nothin g is gained. There I. net lo 

resources and in safety. This alternative' should be dropped ṣs of 

Also 

see the Reference Alternative No. 3. 

2. In-Place Stabilization and Disposal-- Adequate; Accompishes most 

good. 

3. Reference (Combination Disposal)-- Effort is cosmetic. Double 

shell at ... d waste and or .... d TRU waste aa ad .... tely stared. It 

would accomplish greater "hazartl reduction-'if the sin g le shelled 

tanks were emptied and the buried TRU were retrieved and stabilized. 

It makes no a to stabilize the material in the double walled tanks 

and the drummed THU waste if the sin g le wafted tanks and the buried 

TRU wastes aree Jud ged adequately stored. A second site becomes 

contaminated and Hanford remains a controlled site. This alternative 

should be dropped and the WIPP pro gram, as a TRU only storage 

facility, should be terminated. 

4. No Disposal Action— This case ties alternative No. 2 as the best 

of action, particularly if lass of instutional control in the 

year 2150 is not asideration., It has the further advantage of 

avoiding action based 

con on current pressures that mi ght not be totally 

obJectsve. - 

One 

minor note: Defining NonrTRU waste as containing no 

plutonium If it contains less than 100 nanocuriez of piuton ium, fa 

e.inisent of the Lysenco/Stalin decree environmentally 

acquired 

traits can be passed on genetically. It would be more meaningful, and 

honesty to declare that waste containing less than 100 nanocuries of 

plutonium per g ram can be treated as if it contained no plutonium. 

This criterion should be justified in the EIS. 

Respe tf it Submitted 

+IO 

n kf 

05 zn 

Ric land. WA 993e2 

(509) 946-8670 


JUL1806 Ole 

WM DIVISION 

3.3.1.1 

3.3.2.1 

3.3.3.1 

3.3.4.1 

3.1.3.2 

2.4.1.8 

M. J. Szulinski 

M. J. Szulinski

n 

P F 1 

102 103 

I^ 


., JUL 18 1988 

0 107- 

p WMn DIVISION 


J... P. Thma.. 

E 414 AUgnat Avenue JUL 21 686 

O/03 

spoke n WA 9920] 

WM DIVISION 

h3T -./ 3 ^'L. /°-1D/tpK^ 

V 1 

/^/9L94 

far 

and Took Wastes 

Disposal D of fBenfo id Defame high-Lvel. Tr'eneutuic 

W 

2.1.1 

3.3.5.1 

! /"`w l.L 1 Wl , a.c. T U 

^ti (^Q^w.. `f 

Q^ 

SOnf V Q 0..w¢. 

(p LG l.Ci4 

n n _ /^ 

(f -rat— CJT 

U 

( 

.(J Y`p^JO$ 1-Cal 

1^ 

_y.).. S'7^' G 

//-^ e^ f^ Q^ 

r&L^ / n /Ml 

/F .--1-^ O^`// 

.^t.1 

/ /^L 

^ / 3^ µ ^.^Z(, 

pp v ^4 ^^ S 11 G-2 .f-(^4L 69-a ,Q 

C/^ 

// 1 

fJe, (f^ / IYLt. ^r..^ /1 17 ) /r f- 

LA C . SG.fE N^, 

T Q 

G^ 

l/ 

^ 

^w ^^ //^^ 

L(lil a'(— 

July 1 7 , 1986 

I ®dm aebe 

embofof [h[he 

e N [h t CI[IZ P [a on DHema 

W t e 9C i B Comltt of [Ae Nmford 

I anon Action L g. 

near groups will Be D[e tivg 

their own testimony d the following g e my personal 

comments o the Draft Environmental De feat Statement. 

1. To begin I command the Department f t investing 

their 

me a energy 

"—a ti va gp ever the past on menthe i inform and 

the People 

ed at 

ants Northwest M c pl situation 

E theInsertional: tnl:[ he 

Sanford d f t Unfortunately. Ae. Aee Gq 3r14 1. 

f it d 

include 

the Hanford 

of d ly 

P t ed y [ f to he I the 

mme onsid 

dese n M 

D p . r d I. of Energy pi a id A .tie defense 

at 

N f din 

pl Yn 1 vma t 1 Impact Statement. 

gi [ T61e 

fi ld Includethe tee in the 100 and 30D Such as 

tM1 fight id pia ti reactors. To not do this Is &eking 

people to solvejigsaw puzzle with many of the pi' 

missing. ... 

2. Whereas h comeezz has been raised b t the 

zadfosct3ve clear rearm., there is Insufficient attention 

to the problem of toxic chemical mare. no Department of 

En gy I yat to ..,late C p I elv in [ y of the 3.1.6.1 

mi wastes. not adequately 

^v s f; Wes. _^ / ,^.^ 

^J f 

C^ f` / ^p / t^^^^^ h 1 Th Department o ddreesed 

thedisposal those 

//f l^' 

h sur l f t r t with has tautanything .1 

on , 

the1nucl 

G3 

K 

feet this draft Environmental = p t Statement neglects to 3.1.4.32 

a Jose 

y 

gne Battelle t dl of theinteractions 

between 

f)Î l G. Û3^^ '^ a /^ ^ lLC "` 0 R 3 oC. 

Hevf d 19 Mi enure 

explored possibilities the f explosionsin 1 ti g waste 

.^(^ 

n 

/ y^ 

tnka (PNL-5453 C mpl x am Stability Investigation, Task 2 - 

^j. n y 

.+.,. S (//le 

I , (j t%C C.P, / 1 3yû^ h tti C W3.. (.(./ lop 0result Compl r E.C. Hartle). 

w (! 

/^(rnT//t 

/nC^p = 

3. After reading the draft EIS it becomes c 1 that 

3.3.5.4 

at of the proposed dispo 1 th d 

have yet to be y oven. 

Alts gh [he D.p.P.a.t Dan rece i d pp t 

for gl ifying 

,be oal3d wastes 1 the double-shell the 

1 t yet 

n inced chat this technology i suitable for deep geologic 

dip coal .' uncertainty 1 grantingof e of the 

wastes.According to Dvvela Provost of Washington State, 

grouting contains hazardous chemlcale and therefore falls

1. 

'1 fr 

/T 

4 

-7 

0 

^ 

d£ 

X 

103 103 

_2_ 

_g_ 

RECEIVED D06RL 

N 

2 .5.6 

3.3.1.1 

2 .3.2.3 

order provisions of the R esource Cumeaveriov and Recov ery 

Act (RCRA). no draft EIS dose not explain how or when it 

will seat the Rem requiremeces. Gthra methods a still iv 

the canceptI deal, are,. o rely ideas as paper. The 

Input= of Energy does set Anne how to safely dispose of 

the current wastes. Therefore the DepmerNnt should halt OW 

production of plutonium until the current stackpile of wastes 

1e disposed of 1In m acceptable asnv. en Arg um ents that much 

e plutonium p.do a. halt would he. national a arit, are 

The United States paeeeuee more than e is 

necessary to meat any reasonable need for national a writ y. 

Horever, o 

though easeEnvironmental 

this draft Impact 

State me nt speaks of future defame wastes, it offers no 

justification for future plutonium production. She ci[iesn a 

of the Northman ..I be told why they should ...ties. me 

live with the risks of Hanford operations. 

4. With regards to the throe dispo sa l options Presented 

In the draft EIS, I would favor the Department directing its 

arch to the geologic disposal option. 1 me aware that 

this could m... Incre as ed radiation .,..are to Hanford 

markers and char it in the most expensive alternative. 

However I believe that this current generation Is morally 

obligated to accept all the Tie" and coats • ociatedwith 

cheer ma[ae. The majority of the American people have 

thePOrtsd the govemmmt'e nuclear vespoue buildup by their 

votes and [ ax es. It has been this nuclear weapons buildup 

that has produced these wastes. Many in the United Staten. 

though I am not m agree that the risks of these "Stan are 

eeptable because of the .—called benefit of national 

unity, supposedly was by America's nuclear arsenal. The 

Present obligation In to clues, the wastes that have be 

,reduced. With any —.to. tee left iv H an ford soil., farm. 

gonsta[ions will say reap the risks without enjoying my of 

the benefits. 

If this is truly ..a series under God. then we sh ould 

ms¢ fulfilling our call [a be re...ible m seaward., 

beneflcting our dignity as manor. . This beautiful' earth 

I. .red. ell. of axe will be judged we has well we take cut. 

of it. 

5. Given the lack of information concerning easy aspects 

of Raeford'sounces. of which the Department readily 

ackuovledgea theDOB moat co mm it itself, at student, to a 

suppleme ntal HIS. I would eu,,.t that c period of five 

year. wsld be enough for he Do,.,. v[ to provide the 

public with .effici en t infor ma tion. cititent owed this 

Information to esponsibly, porti ipar. I. the decision-mkies 

prone... 

6. There Ss considerable uncertainty about the DOE 

basis, sufficient financial r m s to insure the Bdegte um 

disposal of all defense eats. Me p.a,1. of the Northeut 

will base to generate the necessary s Political support for the 

cleanup of the existing wastes. H ow ever, the cleanup of 

future raatee (a ea continued plutonium pa.d..tian) 

should be funded an e pay-ea-yon-ge basis. Similar to 

Provision. contained In the Nuclear Neste Polity Act of 1982 

(for the diepoaal of commercial mee nuclear wastes), the price of 

special nuclear materials should include a surcharge 

sufficient to guarantee the safe dispo sa l of subsequent 

raatee. 

7. note c on tinues to be.eonfmfon as to shat wastes ar 

high-level and which are n Within the present management 

system of defense wastes. it 1s too easy to bypass certain 

dlepoe.l.requlre rate by elesly —.1 ... ifying the vast... 

What r ce high-level vest. Is em considered ion-level 

an d n 

be c a n disposed of I. A lee ctrl....[ fashion. This I. 

of .peclal concern with the WE because thin agency 1s still 

too far removed from public a restlny. To correct this 

s1[ua[Son. I propose the following two ce ome .d.tions. 

First, the Department should provide epa.Ifia definitlo.e far 

the soriove wa g e. classifications and include the. 1. the 

final EIS. Second, there need. to be Rudeness! at oversight 

and licensing of the Department's disposal preedcee. 'The 

Nuclear Regulatory Coevi.eia., the Environmental Protection 

Agency and the affected states of Dregon, Idaho and 

-Washington could merve this function. 

S. The EIS states that 190 kg. of plutonium in the nail 

will be cleaned up (page A.1)). Hanover. a .rdtg to 

Hanford documents, this will mean that ever 100 kg. will 

amain an the Sanford site;(BNHL-1779 UC-70. 1972 Waste 

Disposal Sâoy, page 4'ead How-1701. 1991 Waste Disposal 

Smeary, page 12). Leaving more than 100 kg.' in Hanford 

soil. Se op.ccept.blep 10 WE. might be acceptable. 

9. 1 have numerous questions regarding the 

tr an sportation of THU wastes to H an ford from offare. In the 

Gctober 1903 Def.... Vase and Byproducts He ....... c Novthly 

Report (MH PB-SR-lo BWH), it states an page 30 that "affairs 

was received 

from Gage ra Park, Lawrence Berkeley, 

Recr-NCCeeand Weetivgbou.e....A total of 233 dr um s of TRO 

vast. has been received from Kerr-McGee into 9/01/83.' Now 

Hanford received 233 drums in ju.two mouths from an 

company, what Ss the total scope of the altns lacc, 

Has and 

.her are these 

in the DBIS? What are the 

contract d angements an d wih which compaviea Who pays for 

the dlspaeal Haw much has been transparted t to Hanford 

already and how much will be transported to the NIP Project 

in Now Basics? 

JUL 21 ON 0105 

WM DIVISION 

2.2.9 

2.2.10 

3.1.1.9 

2.2.13 

3.1.5.5 

3.1.3.4 

3.4.2.7 


JUL 21 WS 0103 

WM DIVISION

- 3 n fi ..i 0 ^ 

c 

33441. -'2. 1 " 6xn...ewest 

Sentf(c., Wa5lniNq(pi„Q^(!19 5+ -ZtL^ do. vlo'F -trwrt- 1. j k-. DoE 

-. Tc.ty t1^lq %6 becwus 0- c!) -rye;: . 3006. k. 3 1a-A - tv 

{law. --L (-') rl e, â6E ^ no l- 

R.A.Not+ti CO Ceyyâ 

l6caveo",RL K oloot# -t u- 1, tat+L- 

L,,s. DQyl +N.a_ed- . '^P e:,..t.v9y. 

JUL 

... 

8. 1 ises ova Pe. FLQ- a,-.. -t^,...... c"'Xo a.. . 

4 

`l.. . 

lî c^nà sQ O?ew>t MJ 

1,MDIVISI()!y 

1' 0 • . 6-A )Sd 

2,'^l â d, â s1 =.,tai. 99 3 Y Z 

). na7bP-. Wlna (VC Iwo-M^.^. :o 'h- .' 

-1i al- -r,t.. oo a a nv\ r.; acca. 

( r^wt t t p gov lnx.+ of C-Vg4,5 

ti. CIXLô sQ o ro. n.3,, a.-{I't Ct wr: i'1'Qw {1 .°1l^9^^,d bè.- ('.a.Akf o^ +,.a_ ^CQar'}tw..ch 

N

!! 

.a ^`'v``2, a 1. ^ d va #^^j'" 

^ ^^^ y 

^^ 

^ 

. s 

k^`?. y + fill; 

Ls.'^b`^1'• l F 6^ FF 

S`^' i,^ atq, ^ w^, - 4 ^^' 

w^^,^C^^ ,g ., 

9 v L 

{^ s ru^w 

'a 

^ ^.. gd_ P^^ k +, '3''^ ^3i 

wn^"' ^ ^ M 

$^ tltl 

rs "^`^',Â^{p a rt av^«.., a axe ^ ^^ ^ ^ ., 

g55gtL ,ap$1' , tst+ue 

i3d 

7 

' 

i; . aw. {yy,r< 

".,err 1 

gi/^ 

1: _^_ A 

.^' " j3"L ^;.. ^' g:^ n N $^ ter, ^' 'p !' ^ ?^^"` 9'„^' 

T 7 clia ^ , ^ ^ d P 

# 

^.a•,mm Ei^ 

I^ 

^s at- ^ yM( m7 1 r Ik 

r'"9 t erg+ x k Am y 

• "^ ^S } ^,. 

yp, 

'Ap1 

A^ r j^., 

^YF4^ #F ^TiW, 

fl 

T.^ Si 

3qY a m yK Fep+-r59, ^T-`° I 

p 

fl t ^ I 

^h`* A66 

^^$ ^^'}^ 3) 64A A 

^dY.r".dkS^dY¢i`yM . ya F 1®swr.f 

ys.' 

YxA 

m 

,{jbA d.Ir ^Mn i .y 

:MV... , 

P^ò- 

^°^(t( ktg 

$AtA^ 

^d^^^L I.^ ^. 

P 

} 

J 

râ'^ 

'Y { a ^ 

p 

^ ^ c-^`2'2^Y L^ r ^ X 

we 

b ^ (iô-* ,Fks ^ ve ^ 

w 

,,,".. ^ w ^r 

Q 

Rg 

$ 

p 

a

ON 

Im 

\4k16 Sb 3 

'^-6\ WA 


JUL210 6 0105.. _ Z C _.6Q3-o 4. Pl 

WM DIVISION 

16 7 05 Meplewild Ave. S.W. 

Seattle, Waeh, 98166 

July 19, 1986 

Rich Spite. 

US. Department of Energy 

Richland Operations office 

P.O, Box 550 

Richland, Wash. 99352 

- 

pri_`,o }alt VI_. 

JUL 21 M CM, 

NlM O!'dfSION 

REGARDING: Draft envirmmental . impact Statement on radioactive defauee Santa 

Mr. Eoltenf 

W 

owi^-IO.row s\^ C¢+u\ J\C\C co'\ I`^°..\ 

\J I 

u^\tor w .n,y \.^ mlisûio^.\ ^S o... v-e vr^c.Ty^ V e'pY 

' ' 

^C' s\v'C '^s\sLc a\. o^ Iti.rt" e^.,..re'^%\ prda(/u

i 4 1: 0 

10'7 107 

2.5.5 

2.2.10 

2.4.1.8 

2.4.1.4 

2.3.2.7 

Testimony of Joan Mootry, Rt. 1, Box 554, Spokane, WA 99204 RECEIVED DOE-RL 

Presented to the U.S. Department of Energy 

Spokane hearing on Hanford Pefenae Waste Environmental Impact Scat Wrote 2 1986 

July 17, 1986 

WM DIVISION 

I we an active participant I. and an advocate for the democratic process. 

One of the moat blatant examples of abuse of the democratic process that I've 

encountered Has been the Delartment of Energy's attempt to appear committed 

to deal honestly with its massive amounts of nuclear garbage, while following 

Its own agenda co make more and dump it into the sail, air and water as usual. 

For example, by 1982 WE's practice of dumping defense waste directly 

into the soil bed caused 12 million cubic meters of Hanford's soil to become 

so contaminated with plutonium that WE's ow guidelines required the soil 

to be transferred to WE's underground waste facility is New Mexico. But the 

site tempt hold that much waste, end the cost of excavation and abipment 

.old Have been enormous. So WE solved the problem by raising, by SO tines, 

Its own guidelines for plutonium concentration in soil. With the stroke of 

a pen, plutonium-contaminated waste became low-level waste, and plutonium 

mail.... to micas. in Hanford'¢ soil. 

Here Is another example of how WE, on paper, solves its technical and 

Budgetary dilemma: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires. that Hanford's 

29 million Endless of high-level waste in tanks, plus its 500,000 gallon 

already looking into the emirmznmt, be solidified and buried in A high-level 

waste repository licensed by NEC. So. WE simply issued WE Order 5820.2 

which makes a distinction between wastes produced before the Act and ;hose - 

produced after, making earlier wastes not subject to the Act. 

For those here today who might feel beholden to WE for presenting an 

environmental impact statement on Nanfe,d'a defense Waste, I Went to make 

one thing very clear. Tbe HIS was not drafted became of WE's concern for 

the environment or the safety of citizens. It was drafted because citizens 

Have ended Hanford's 42-year history of _obscurity; . public pressure forced 

this EIS. 

And true to form. WE has onceagain turned the spirit of the HIS into 

e costly exercise in futility. The time allotted for citizens to stud y the 

document and to testify about it appears to Have been purposefully inadequate, 

man again revealing how WE continues to view citizens' opinion with 

contempt. 

-1- 

-I wish to remind the Energy Department that it is working for us. It's 

stone-age practice of dumping radioactive and chemical waste directly into 

the ground is unacceptable to us If it continues such practices i spite of 2 . 2.10 

then something c is very Wong with the way democracy is functioning in 

America. 

American citizens are paying the wages for each and every member of this 

bureaucracy. We are even paying over $5 million this year alone for Hanford's - 2.5 . 5 

"public relations" so that highly-paid apokespereoae for the department and 

its contractors can tell us what a fine job they're doing. We don't believe 

them. 

Like inexperienced farmhands gone. berserk, WE and Its contractors Have 

occupied our land, used our monetary and physical resources to feed their 

insatiable ancred co s, and paid us back by letting the c defecate 

their dangerous poisons into the very agricultural heartland of our region. 

And they continue to do eol' 

Common logic demands that the front-end of this nuclear misadventure be 

addressed before the back-and can be deult with appropriately. As long as 

plutonium production continues at Hanford. WE's current, limp attempt to 

address the problems of defense waste will be viewed correctly as the farce 

that it is. 

Existing defense waste must be cleaned up, of course, And WE Has heard 

hundreds of Northwest citizens testify that safety, not economics, should be 

the min. priority. People are willing to Pay , for the most reliable and safe 

procedures available. But, compared to other WE facilities, federal appropriations 

for Hanford'. cleanup are exceedingly low, revealing that the department's 

priority at Hanford is expediency, not safety. Now then, can we believe 

that this hearing is anything but a mockery? 

Clear in the minds of Northwest citizens is them y of months spent 

t 

2 .5 . 6 

.L 

rl . 1 

studying incomplete and inaccurate data on the repository. The public's 

studied opinion that Hanford is not geologically or hydrologically suitable 2.1.1. 

tees mirrored by reputable independent scientists throughout the country, nut, 

regardless of the scientific data, WE pursued its own political agenda, and 

lame excuses were made. 

Speaking of a c.am, citizens nationwide are fed up with WE's ploy of 

Painting to "national security" and "Congressional mandates" In order to 

duck-and-cover when held to accountability. 

RECEVEL DOS RL 

-2- JUL 221988 

WM DIVISION 

pj57

4, Y^ 

EM 

107 108 

2 .1 

WE has violated the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by eliminating ee[ontl-round 

repository pas sites. It has purposefully destroyed (if the even existed) docu- 

manta related to its selection of HenEo[dl It originally claimed that ane[lenel 

SPOKANE, WASNINGTDN 

RECEVEL) DQURL 

JULY 15, 1906 JUL 22 

UNITAD STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

WM DIVISION 

0/0Y, 

s¢CUr1Cya pre anted it Ervin. telling .boat Raeford's manaive amounts Of radioactive 

SPOKANE PUBLIC HEARING 

2.5.5 

iodine released upon unsuspecting American citizens. And, amidst probing questions 

and critical testimony, it BOB recently twice walked at on the Congress of the 

United States of America. Its bureaucratic bungling and scornful disregard for 

DEAR SIRS, 

citizen and Congressional authority are legion. Yet, when pressed, individuals 

within WE lament that "Congress made us do 1t." 

I am a long-time resident of this area having Just recently returned from 

I submit that the U.S. Department of F ergy has deceived Congress. just as 

working out of state and now residing in Spokane, Washington. 

it has the people of the Northwest. Coca again, I wish to firmly remind WE 

Officials that thin is a do ... r.... end that we-the-people are your employer. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the Issue of disposal of 

F3 

A 

2.5.6 

boss and highest authority. We are telling you that continued plutonium prodne- 

tisn at Hanford is unnecessary for national defense, Is incompatible with cleanup 

of Nonfood and is causing unnarept,dble risk to American citizens. 

radioactive wastes from the Sanford nuclear site. 

I believe that the best solution to the current situation is for the 

Hanford jobs need not be eliminated. but companies and workers should be United States to collectively contain insofar as is possible all nuclear ^. 

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 ,{ 

for decades, if not centuries, with restorative work of which they, themselves, 

and citizens everywhere Can be proud. 

pYY 

geological formations that can be found, most probably underground salt 

3 

formation.. I s appose on-site disposeI by ., m ass as this la7 

would surely perpetuate the pnisen£ng of the land and water which has 

addC 

already begun. We Sat retract and contain a cash of this terribly deadly .l 

RECEI V7C DOE-RL 

material as is possibl e . and begin to reduce and f inall y eliminate the 

JUL 22 1986 sources from which it comes. 

2'i 

. 

L 1 1 . 

1 

2. 5. 6 

WM DIVISION 

We have a responsibility to our families and to our nation: a responsibility 

to future generations and really to all life on this planet. The whole world 

is watching; now and in times to come. Will we act intelligently and responsibly 

or will we will we act in fear and in greed? 6 

As a citizen of the country which I love most deeply. I call on you to 

e^ 

y^t, 'f 

please awaken to this great task and to begin the work ubich must begin now 2. 2 . 1 

in order to secure a safe and peaceful world for all mankind. 

o 

f 

Respectfully years, 

/ 

g 

Kanaeth W. burchel— 

"'^¢/ ^• `^' m^ "/ RR^ 

3

4 

0 

£. 

109 im 

C 


PUBLIC HEARING RECEIVED DDE-RL 

AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE JUL 22 IM p/pq 

1. Now did y ou learn of the hearings? 

VIM DIVISION 

Newspaper Radio TV _ Mail — At work 

Word of mouth — Other (alease specify) 

10) 3= 2l t ,x.6-I '^Zn.i^k';.--0.'^:^-4, c--.,. 


JUL 22 1986 plpi b 

WM DIVISION 

2. Did you attend one of the Hanford Defense Waste O p en Houses in 

Februar y or March? Yes — No 

3. Did y ou attend one of the Hanford Defense Waste Informational 

Worksho p s In Ma y or June? Yes — No 

x 

4. Did you have access to a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement or the Summar y ? Yes _ No 

2 .1.1 

M 

5 

l - 

Please rate each of the following 

- Very Good Goad Fir Poor 

Hearin gs moderator 

Procedures for recordin g comments 

Physical arran g ements — 

2.5.5 

6. 

Process for requesting to comment -_ oK — 


Please share any additional comments y ou may have about these hearings. 

za 

d 

— 2 .2.14 

?. 

An y duition ? ^^ o ¢om eX67 bout the process of submittin g written 

comments on the Draft Environmental Im pact Statement? 

14—"we)44 


THIS QUESTIONNAIRE,

D 

k 

^wT 

1W 

IM 


keC FIVER . DOE.RL 

V 

2,2.1 

2.2.14 

2.2.14 

Promising U. Science, : Biving Us Politics- 

' Wi lliemHarper Hnuff , PT .D. 

JUL 2 a ^^ 

WM DIVISIpN 

In an editorial published at the time YOU, the United States 

Department of Energy, issued Your Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement On the disposal. of Hanford's defense waste,: the 

Tr - City Herald compared Your task to the one HrrcUlrs had - 

Ih"cl eansing the Augean stables. in fact, the Herald 

one LU tletl that your labor is greater. 

I would agree. But I would also take the comparison 

'further. For( -although Hercules was memorable hero', he 

wa ^ l ver y responsible one 

According to the famous Greek m yth, the stables of Aueas, g 

King of Elis, had been collecting filth for thirty Years. 

You have been doing likewise for over fort y . And Hercules 

did his Job in single day by diverting the River Alpheus 

through the place and washing the waste dovnriver. Your 

task will take much longePI and we are desperatel y concerned 

that you not do something similar with the Columb i a! On 

We do not oppose the disposal of Hanford's defense wastri we 

fee., it, We onl y wish you had had greater foresight and 

responsibility when You began. ..and continued the contbminatier. 

W concerned that, r n me you '.... tle with the 

awesome problems of disposal, You are adding more waste to 

the mass. And we are desperatel y Concerned that, In Your 

e ff ertz at cl...... you net make a bad problem worse!. 

Much Of what You do at Hanford is notified b y the word 

'science,' AI thOUgM1 increasingly distrusted, your science 

still has t power. grea And that i is bobering, for science 

deserves better than You have donewith ,It. 

The problem 1st you start off doing science and and up 

corrupting it with politics Y There is no better example of 

that than the choice of Hanford as On. of the finalists for 

a civilian high-level nuclear waste repository. 

All along in Your repositor y selection, You emphasized that 

Hanford would be chosen ONLY if it were proven safe by 

scientl4ic study . But even though Hanford ranked fifth in 

early every technical aspect, when the finalist choices 

made, H&" Ord suddenl y Jumped to third. Wh y? Because 

,up 

e -wanted' to characteri Z. a basalt site..'.. 

-Testimon 

y 

presented at the USDDE hearing on its draft - 

Environmental Impact Statement on 'Disposal of Hanford 

Defense Hlgh-Level, Transuranic And 'lank Wastes,' Spokane 

Cit y Hall, Jul y 17, 1986. 

Jul. 22 IM 

6116 

When I became a ac lent l at, one of the cardinal rul WMDIVISION 

learn was that the facts reported not be colored by what I 

• wan b d!' 

I ♦ tread all of this because It ¢Ul Dies your reputation in 

general and compromises Your DEIS In particular, The Job' 

that needs doing will take all the power and trustworthiness 

that science at its best can Offer. Set because of Your 

past pe f r ce s the p ssibil lt'es that the work will be 2 e C e L 

ar axpe v an tlt L ag b00ndoggl a almost all one 

J :J 

aee. 

we Ill 

H 

t t 

nc coerns noted, let me now make a few cenmants about 

Your DEIS.... 

First and always, I me disturbed b y the enormous number of 

assumptions that go on to become the basis of critical 

calculations: YOU know a well as I that errors tend to 4lrtQ 4. 1.20 

multiply with every at.,, s and almost all 01 Your prognostica 

tions Involve vmultiple. steps. 

Time after time, You admit that the procedures contemplated 

and the machiner y . required have net been tested or BVen 

designed. One of the more intriguing terms to Your document 

is 'p .... nceptual.' 

4 e 1 e 

I searched Your glossar y , and the word 'precvnce,ptual•. 

not defined.. Neither it found In the dictionar y . About 

the closest the dictionar y canes is 'preconception,- which 

I¢ tlefi ed as 'pttiutl c- .' An anal ysis of the. ore's con— 4e 1 e8 

stituent parts suggests that when You sa y .'preconceptual,' 

what You mean is that You haven't thought about something. 

That troubles m 

There are any technical details In Your DEIS that worr y me. 

I regret that You have allowed onl y five minutes for overbal 

testimony at this hearing -- but half of what was permitted 

at the civilian repositor y Environmental Assessment hearing. 

Somehow, more comforted when our concerns are spoken 

out here In Public F they risk ending Ina file 

2 p 3 2 12 

box 'a where, perhaps n .,.In to'Bae the light of day. B. • 

Because this Is how you have structured these hearings, I an 

attaching an appendix to the written co py of this testimony. 

D hope it will be read 

no taken seriously .... 

One of my grea te st worries about Your defense waste cleanup 

safety 

is accountability. How do we knw that human health and 

.111 have the 

too How 01How 

'01,ty? 

established quality control standards will be fell Wed i 

this critical and complex task? How do we knW that, once 

How 

begun, the Job will be completed as planned? do we know 

that the bi i Ilona of dollars needed for tbls prole Pt will be 

p roper l y spent? 

is 

we know that 

2 • 2a 1

110 110 

.N 

2.2.13 

3.3.1.1 

2.2.14 

2.5.5 

3.3.4.1 

3.1.4.25 

_ 9 _ 

=WED DOE-RL 

NECEIVED Cv- 2L 

4UL 221986 

'4' JUL 22 W6 

Anyone factorDIVISION 

1,-fondod familiar with waste and graft an latheWM And, tlo.f at the gravel strategy 

WM 

0IID 

moderate I 

create hi gb-level 

quaky .4 Sunda pr p loctf is bound to about both the waste nuclear Nuclear y es, all of whichn shoultl be legally 

quality of the work tla. and the war the e man month i4 handled. licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory P 

as required 4 w 1 w/ 

ea sort of lad 

t, the to Chsas uncap the Nuclear Waste Policy Actt of 19S2 

19529 

waste cleanu 

p ispractically ourfi dent an open invitation nvtation to recut. I 

all a of hope !bat, in Your nalh an will fa reassure s On 

all of this by p.oYitling a mech.. +ni an far public accovntabllitY! 

My final concern is this.... I urge You to adopt the safest 

and most permanent alternative in your DEIS -- geologic 

disposal. And I would add to that recommendation an equally 

fervent be mme endation that the deep repositor y chosen not 

be on the ver y banks of the Columbia River. Such a choice 

not onl y violates the scientific facts but common sense and 

moral principle as wall. 

8an0thinh .1...... You know as well as I.do that, if the 

deep -geologic alternative is to work, v 

most 

Immediately 

erse ylur crassl y pol.ltical tlecision to suspend the 

a. arch for a .C.Od-round repositor y site in the East. 

Otherwise, you will not have ram for both the civilian 

waste sad the defense mate. 

i and with the some concern with which I began. Thou9hout 

your fort y-year legac y, you have promised us science and 

safet y and given us politics and pollution. In the process, 

Inman h health and trust. - e onomic and social priprrties/ 

tleme¢.atic and scientific cprocess . Say. all been sacrificed. 

I hope to God that r. will do better than that with your 

Offense waste' 

Aeaend'x 

Be yond the primar y Yalu* that human health and safety, 

pr sent lad future, should take priorit y over economic. or 

politics, there is on e other general principle that should 

be uppermost in your thinking ac you go about the defense 

waste cl soup.. This is that whatever you do should at ..d 

up making a bad situation wars!. Even under the best of 

conditions and Intentions, there is reason to fear that You 

will spend billions of dollars converting your waste Into 

forms where it will be even more difficult to Process. 

further, should that become n ....all. 

For a am p le, in on. of your alternatives You propose leaving 

the alt sludge In the bottoms of the 149 single-walled. 

tanks in place and filling the tanks with gravel. What 

happens if you later need to at at that sludge because it 

If continuing to be an environmental hazard (a$ sane of it 

has already don% by looking)? 

Something else that bathers me is haw you hay omitted am. 

300 r ad i ologicallY-contaminated sites at Hanford Fran your 

cleanup Plans. In 1980, with A stroke of the Pen, r 

transformed man y millions of cubic metals of transuranic 

wash to a 1Cw-la Vel Categor y . Whereas the lower limit for 

TRU waste used to be 10 nanocuries per gram, USDOE order 

5820.2 summaril y raised the limit to 100 n es per 

Crash. Uni or tuna tel y, the hazard involved Old r not change at 

all! 

It worries me, too. that I. your di .cuss inns of ........a 

like vitrification and grouting, no formulations with test 

suits are listed. You do refer generall y to the fact that 

the a c Of both processes depends p u pon conprnsatln9 for 

the particular ..at. composition i volved. Aa a chemist, I 

know that the, ph ysical. properties of both glass and concrete 

are compromised by any + impurities present. And, when You a 

say vitrification and grouting, you a e talking about 

turning out tons and tons of impure glass and concrete. 

I worr y about leaching from im p roperl y-formulated grout. 

The Savannah River Plant's EIS admits that studies on the 

leachability. of grout are in a 'preliminar y stage'-- hardly 

a proven Process. 

In the absence of test results, I worr y also about atmospheric 

emissions from your vitrification process. While 

sam.tim.. cited as an encouraging example, the French Vitrificaclon.plant 

on the eritan y Peninsula has Y bad reputation 

en radioactive emissions. 

Several Other concerns.... You have written loop DEIS risk 

sessment% in terms of what rdo can reasonabl y uanticipate. 

Yet, most serious nuclear a cidents hae involved the 

unexpected. Because t I. Cmprebable, IYou noften minimize 

the Potentially catastro p hic. ' 

Far example, I. section H.4.$. on b.ndlimg 'Pre-1970 TRU 

Solid West*,- there is the mention of a possible accident 

from 'criticalit y due. to changes in fissile geometr y during 

subsidence Operations.' That sounds like a full-scale 

nuclear disaster tom -- smething comparable to what 

happened at Kysht ym in 1957 and nearl y happened at Hanford 

in 1973. 

Also, your discussion of Socioeconomic Impacts (Appendix K) 

is Cry mechanical and completel y ignores a crucial matter 

citizen perception and ....It. This is the most 

important imponderable of all -- one that is still only 

2.4.1.8 

3.1.8.1 

3.1.8.13 

3.1.8.1 

3.1.8.10 

3.4.3.8 

3.4.3.8 

3.2.6.3

110 111 

3.2.6.3 

2.5.1 

2.5.1 

3.3.1.1 

2.5.6 


5 JUL 22 1986 

whl.pered about.. Most peapl. do act went to nee, work WMPIVISION 

ra Ise families near. nuclear fern hies. And, whether You 

know it pr not, net v.0 do at Wsof Ord has became a social 

antl a on pmlc blight in Eastern Washington. Alread y . there 

Ia evi tlence that n w businesses art reluctant to locate 

here, phase shoal d e y ou rJactivities sAd reputation camprani se 

the marketabilit y of Washington's agricultural products, an 

economic satastroph y of unparalleled scope will be the 

r.sui t. 

Another: Important matter.... Several times In your 

preambles to sections, You mention full awing the most 

conservative lines of reasoning and reckoning. Yet, Your 

descriptions repeatedly manifest a facile optimism. 

Several times You assure us, 'While there Is no intention 0f 

the federal government to ever leave the site....' Lome on 

No g ovement, rn much less cwll iza[ion. has ever lasted 

the 1 time Your wastes will remain dangerous. In fact, Your 

DEIS assumes loss of institutional control by the Year 2150 

-- a il`ymfraction of the time much of the waste will be 

hazardous. 

What You are planning must outlast climate changes, ice. 

a9es, geological u pheavals, and, if i we so lucky, human 

populations whose understandin gs, languages, values and 

purposes will be ver y different from our own. 

For this latter reason alone, it is crucial that vo adopt 

the most permanent and inaccessible alternative --f he 

geologic disposal. And Iwould add to that recommendation 

an equall y fervent re entlation that the deep repos i tprr 

chosen not be wlthina stone's throw of the Columbia River. 

Finall y , midst all of the doubt and contr ... ra y aver how 

Your defense waste should be handled, there it m atter 

that s s clear and unambiguous. Especlallvuntil You are 

much more convincing ing In Your abllitr to dispose of the 

efense waste already hand, the processes that generate 

that waste should be brought to A halt! 

RECEIVED DOz RL 

7; 00 ?H Sante,i JWt221996oy,, 

WM DIVISION 

United States Senator Slade Gorton 

Testimony for the U.S. Department of Energy peblle Searing 

on the Defense Waste Environmental Impact Statement 

July 17,'1956 

I regret that I am enable to be here personally to comment 

on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the pileposal of 

Hanford Defense Wastes.. I have asked Dick Ellis, my Eastern 

Washington Director, to present this testimony on my behalf. 

Cleaning up 40 year. north of defense vas to at Hanford is 

one of the most im p ortant task. facing the Department of Energy. 

Making sure that the Department carrlee out this responsibility 

safely, effectively, and expeditiously is one of the most 

important' task. facing the State of Washington. 1 an pleased at 

the interest and involvement of Washington residents in this 

important issue. 

The overriding criteria for the diap ... I of Hanford'* 

defense cessta must be the protection of public health and our 

envic...nt. E.cent actions taken by the Department of Energy, Mele 1 

however, lead me to question the Department's c0mmittment to

.:y 

1W 

um 

It t I Itil'I L1-. sass . 1 1: HG: A . 1V I'll LIJII 1,1 1 OLLG 61 .^ 1 I J 

ILLV.U'I LI: LY'i : I: VL: •I: JI 1'N: 'Mlle, i 1040 1, 11 1 . . 

page 2 

RECEIVED DOE-RL' 

JUL 221986 

WMDIVISION 

Page 

RECEIVE D DOER 

wuL221986 D!// 

WM DIVISION 

ti 

giving priority consideration to the protection of public health 

and our environment. on May 28th John Herrington, Secretary of 

Energy. announced that, if DOE has its way. further 

consideration of secondary repository site.. in the central and 

"'tern United States will be indefinitely postponed. 

It is particularly disturbing that the decision to 

Indefinitely postpone work on a second repository was based 

partially on.the Department of Energy assumption that defense 

waste in mingle-shell tanks at Hanford would not be placed in e 

repository.This implies that the Department of Energy has 

,3.3.6.7 

f .,. 

01 

O 

OO 

2 .1.O The Department's unilateral decision to e depend the second 

2 .2.14 

repodtocy siting program violate. both the intent and letter of 

the law. As a member of the Senate Environment and public Works 

Committee during 9 the 97th Con g rose, I was deeply 8y involved in 

developing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. I was 

responsible for including in the Act provisions that require the 

siting at A second repository and place A cap On the amount of 

waste disposed of in the first repository.. My intent ion was to 

ensure that the first repository site would not later become the 

already decided not to choose the option of disposing of 

Hanford' s existing defense Waste Ina repository. Under 

existing law, no more than 70,000 metric tons of high level 

..waste can be disposed of in the first repository. If Hanford's 

existing defense wart. was added to commercial waste and other 

defense waste the combined total Weald exceed 80,000 metric 

tons. The Department'. ApParent opposition to building a ...Oud 

repository gives the impresion that the Department intends to 

leave Hanford's defense waste where it 3s. 

i 

only repository in the nation. 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement must clarify this 

2.4.1.1 

The Department of Energy has neither the responsibility not 

the authority to decide whether or not to proceed with the 

:.lotion of A second repository.. As one of the Senators 

1.oOIv.d in dra Ring the Act., I can attest to the fact that the 

element. of the Act are I ... P ... his. : The airing of A second 

repository I. a key element that can not be removed without 

joupaxdizin g the entire Act. The Department of Energy must be 

requited to strictly comply with the law. 

issue and specifically address the impact of .inglo-shell tank 

waste disposal on the first repository. I am deeply concerned 

that the Department of Energy's illegal second repository 

decision will add pressure by the Department to statilize the 

single-swell tank ... to in place. 

Another issue of particular concern is that the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement dose not adequately address the 

3.3.2.1 

13

e`4 ^ 3 fr8 ^^ 

k 3 

xp 

U 

.,y1 

Ill ill 

1 

HUn IkLL1.W IkN 1Ya !-I'/-tlU: 9: J1 VN: 

[1111 bJ 1yv i '!-I'l-tlG: I:, P.; 

IM, .1 i 4.W.11 1 . O 

Page e 

RECL RL 

euL h 2 E186 

WM DIV10 

dll I 

page 5 

RECEIVED DOE•RL 

JUL 22 ISas 

ON4 

WM DIVISION - 

mac live quantities of chemical waste currently in the single- 

in the ongoing site selection process for high level was te 

shalltanke and contaminating. Hanford soil. This chemical 

repositories. I have cosponsored legislation to rectify this 

3.1.6 .1 contamination is a dangerous environmental and Health threat. 

The Department of energy must .take immediate action to identify 

serious oversight, and I caution the Department not to make the 

same error in considering defense waste disposal options. I 

3.4.2.23 

the hazardous chemicals at Hanford and ensure that each disposal 

join the citizens of Spokane and other communities on potential 

al ternative specificall y addresse o . chemical contamination. 

transportation corridors in urging the Department of Energy to 

carefully consider the transportation impacts of its defen se 

In addition, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement does 

past. motion.. In addition, it 10 . important that the Final 

3.4.2.24 

r 

fn 

N 

not indicate that the Department Of Energy intends to comply 

with the requirements and the intent of federal and state 

Environmental Impact Statement includes an explanation of the 

federal assistance which x111 be made available to. 10 0e1 

environmental laws. The Washington Department of Ecology 

emergency response providers. 

already has fined the Department of Energy for Han£Ord's non- 

2.4.1.1 

compliance with certain environmental law. The Department's 

non-compliance with these environmental laws can not be 

I strongly Support the Department of Energy's efforts to 

clean up Hanford. I will continue to work for adequate federal 

tolerated. 

TheDepnftment of Energy must demonstrate that its defen se 

waste actions can satisfy federal and State laws. in the Final 

funding to support the se efforts, including continuing work on a 

facility to process rather than bury the N-Seactor i z cadfoactive 

discharge, pumping radioactive liquid out of single-shell tanks p 

and researching and developing technologi es , such as the 

2.3.2.12 

2.4.1.1 

Environmental Impact Statement, the Department should indicate 

its intent to comply with all . appropriate federal and aLate laws 

to protect public health and the env ir onment. 

glaneffication facility, for immobilising nuclear waste. 

Another concern which deserves special note is the impact 

3.4.2.23 of the transportation of defense waste. In my view, the 

t 

Department has not adequately addressed transportation impacts

a- 

2110 NOISIAIO WM 

. 9961 99 ine 

l8- •,_•.;0321 

NOISIA10 MA 

^11^ 

9961 ZZ lnP 

Css°'•.' 

'STTwiaoddv e}gi III ' em Teg • ITS • .SA gnegl 

'aeseauTB 

LyaaBVOO Fq p ... ug}sap s oid uo,..T.. ql q]y a .STldmoa 

• 

TaTzia I— saz sex w'.. 3o —,I ... 

eaReSx iea0. pUC ;ani Poop.. 

d.TP Pw VISIT.g znTiaaT3a 30 . 

mwir^dmT ayi .. n^p.uS.... ua do I. pFpw saZx. wpaa0 zwaua5 - - 

^.'^7 • 

• E •a SITTSa}.m enopsaPaq P.a.% .v.m q I a. IT J.qx 

` E, 6Tn Sasaa .sae Pod. a 

' g aasex neap--. algm —111'- pue -I-XI z 

palOry TVem eq Uo IT q , ul 

p anolH anoga e q 

^] P-4--p ]wId uoAaaT3Ti]TA -I--M ay] 3v ivamaauanptl 

vea a9aloiaam}ivaam a q} vZ 'S 

'9 

godeal 

'aleen 

-Q 

aaaP^ aag Tq^®T o] .2..a ]vam]eazl I..A zeaPnu tl 'h 

a}aax 

P-Ti T...Ts SP *aoj ..q TJff 

aq aai- I.I. gasa 10Ta 

vo F ieg 

• eyue] I ....... 

TITin pva g0saeaas a9a.moave of 1ep10 vL •G 

2.,. moz3 ajsee an.px ... q ;o SuTdmnd 'E 

• 

•SiTTluad rvaa]eaxl 

pT1ox aq} }nog8 Olj i^nposd eTq..T,.p 

i.Tlla w o] SSTluagV 'T 

g Z 

a ea ST... -Ri Ti e - o} a Tg T ... d aq .am 

a wTldmoa TeivammaTnva a]aldmoa o]uT P--l-Sy Svpg 'T 

iT '-OT"-np. pva qaj ea ees aeF.vaiia 4.1j, •y 

azv3o]azay P....Pp. AIa]enbap- 6 a 

'QOT%--T—W-. 

Z •.Z 

aaq IS. aneq iey] PI,ue I. eI..F.I dl ?,.So. ^] v,,2 aq uoquai]s 

Sa "IS. 8x p IIRp3H 30 .1aa3 aql aie}A-Te of I.S. 

pue 9-TP-1 ]ayi IS,... So, uo]io, io]ev.S 'ai¢F]uem SIT uI 

'SIT- dmnP zeaPnn IeuoT]eu e w Pin;neg IS uvTT Toou ay] i..I d .. 

• 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 

o3 .TQT.god 

aova AOO PUe awtiq uea --I ... S SIT- P- 

pva '9.a1-x - T-[ aeq vo]I-O ioI..S 

I-VII-npvT P-S Te-TP-m 'ST=OA pva 

.1oa.UT eUTTosivoa •pool 9UTASaaald 10; -'ITT 

OId 

'paz TlT} n 

SI, moa; auAeynap bT .Iauaud 

aQ v.. IT xoq vo gosaa-aa aiomo.13 

So Tuamoasda, ay] go ewT]ae SIT 

8 Cj 

aJ..M m0 9 

puzogge P APTlp d nq aN saz8na0 

So ......dgsd en Try OSOTBe1 aq} 

Aq y]aog ]as ee ee zealanu I^ v^d,p ]uauad ema ayi I., ee oad 

So ejTJ ... q aqi aIomold of .,,,.d uOTI..IM 

u^T]aalae -ITS SqI 04 aiagpe o] PavymialOP eT uo]IV•3 aoiewaaa 

pue gvoTI.T., a Tlq.d aoT ... I.. Ua vo ind a1 

aoii}®oa aq] oI paaanTT-P aq ITT. AuomTi ea] 

"UOT}--RR-- HUTMO TT OJ -Al J-PTI-0 a g e. Td 

ua]iTAI.aa •1 apeiS I-i_n I-Is P.Im I. Slegaq uo ivwaie]a 

I-Tlq a -VoS-I AIISSTlodda STyi anay o] am I.I aov^y So eT II 

:—T-1 'Ili 

35£66 - q..M 'pvaTgOTB 

099 av8 •01d 

.31.m so •1d-u -s-n 

986T 'LT LW 

9961 '01 4T,, 1 

9£166 UGHejo '.p,..., 

'NOINOJ Sums Nod llo nxu NOSONIR M Steal 1 'SI a x3la AR 

SL£l xoe IN }.T..H 

®SN853Nd'AaNSN3 do . MLNtldda 3sd. d0 1N'3 s VlSatlAII 'Itlms g oNIANS Fdtlsa 

3Iwm 3SMIAHa agodHbM 9 w Nuum aCNIS aolms Hw ENOWIisaz WSHU 

%m 1' ; for 

6 '8 ' T 'E 9T-,NTPQ=TITS -pva9odosd3 Tivai egigiae aivna0 '£ 

107s.a^ i vd -".r 

LO 

ITT 

t o- 

1/1

M 

-15 


JUt22 OSS 

aiM 

WM DIVISION 

3426 RE 19th Ave. 


Only 16, 1906 

Testimony far g ap ertment of Energy Public Hearing oa Nuclear 

Waste Management - .July 3, 1956, Richland Washington. 

Given by sell... Webster, 1235 I.... a, Walla Well., We. 

99362 

R.A. Holten/EIS 

0.3. Department of Energy - 

Riehl= Operations 

PO. Dom 550 

Ricbland, WA 99352 

Dear Sir or Ms.: 

We wish to empress our strong objections to the location of the 

nuclear waste depository at Hanford, in Washington State. Its 

location So close to the Columbia River, a critical sou c of water 

re 

the unproven safety of the Site make it a dangerous end risky 

chute.. 

We recognize that the nation needs to have a nuclear waste 

.depository somewhere, and that n0 one wants it in their 'backyard,' 

but there must certainly be locations that are less papal ate a, with 

more stable geology, and less risk to important sources ofwatee 

(Much as the Nevada site). 

Thank you for your consideration of thin letter. 

2 , 1 , 1 and recreation for both states (Washington and Oregon), as well as 

My name is Melissa Webster. I live in Walla Walla with my husband 

and two Children, The announcement that Hanford was recommended as a 

finalist for the nation's nuclear waste due, Checked and disappointed 

me. I had understood that the Hanford Bite was not favorable for 

untlerground radioactive wastes because the rock of this region is 

porous. I had under toad that the large population area in the basin and 

the proximity of the Columbia Fiver also made this area unsafe for this 

type of storage. What has Changed to cause this area to be considered 

no. far the great hot spot of the nation? 

Other questions which haunt me are: 

If we have so Much Waste already and have no safe way to defuse or 

dispose of it why do we continue to produce it? Weuldn't it be better 

to develop sof., far.. of an.,,? 

Why must one are. (or two) of the country be sacrificed in this by 

when nuclear waste is being produced at many sites? 

2,1.1 

2.5.6 

3.3.5.2 

W 

ly, 

./ 

7 

0 

Ric rrdddRRRoveaa^ber 

Rochelle Rosevear, 

Why due. the 00E :think we will accept a Stud, which they have Made 

themselves and which Corse. their own interests? 

why do they tell u5 it can be safe when we know in our hearts it would 

not tie? Ine past record at Hanford and the disaster at Chernobyl justify 

our mistrust and fear. 

And finally, why does anyone or any agency or government think they 

have the ri ght to pollute the earth. in this mm.Meal and irreversible 

nner? In our careless use end abuse of nature In the name of pf.V..B 

we have came so far that We no longer see the magnitude OF what We are 

doing. 

2.5.5 

2.2.12 

I have a right to speak here today because I live close to the 

Hanford area and I c. deeply about preserving the beauty and safety 

of this region. Cut I speak also for the protection of the entire 

country and I urge the department to see to the ending of nuclear 

waste production before; it provides far long term store,.. of present 

and future Waste. 

Thank you. 

ht ::_ 

Melissa 2. Wabater JUL 22 DO 

y;Mi OIVISION

iii 

11G 

' 

fj 

- 

Aby 

TESTIMONY OF 

GOVERNOR BOOTH GRRONEk 

p tp^ 

RErvE.._^ p - RL 

dUL 2 2 966 /atb 

V 

WM DIVISION 

- - RECEC,iEP DOERL 

JUL 22 Bffi 

eo[ b 

It ^g 1 

Governor Gardner tha t I express his regrets that' l XV g1.V qN 

net be hare personally requested to c ant an the Draft Environmental Impact 

6tatement on the Disposal of mHan{orC Defense High-level. trans.- 

antl Tank Wastes. He asked me to present his testimony. My 

. Curtis E.chels. - I am Governor Gardner a . special aael at ant 

on 

ergy i I Chair the stake of Washington Energy Facilit y' 

Site Eval uata on sCOUncilr and I am a member of the state of 

Washington Huai... Waste Board. 

Before I malt. Specific ...marts, I will take a few moments to list 

,an...I criteria the U.S. Department of Energy fU500E) should use 262.3 

to reach decisions. The number one criterion must be the protecdo 

of public health and the environment. To meet this all importank 

cri terienr USDOE .must 

- us . sl.t.-Of-th.-art t.chnol.gieS; 

In 3. 5 .`F 


In.. 

19391 Aidin g Energy Age eexclust aand vingsintwthe the 

for 

sunshine or current federal legislation; 

USDOE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 

consider r} 

econom y but not allow a onomlcs to drive tleci- 9 ..2 . 3 

on 

DEFENSE WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

CURTIS ESCHELS 

SPECIAL ASSISTANT ON ENERGY ISSUES 

0.1, 8. 1986 

- minimize future releamesl and 1.5.6 

- make s. nce, not politics, prevail in the decision 2.2.1 

..Ling Pro. cess 

The cleanup f. this 4u ..... .4 of wastes is a maJ pr.' 

long term challenge for USDOE antl the t to of Washington. This 

Draft EIS is the beginning of a long, difficult, and e:penslve 

task... 

I am plc setl that kM1e ci[a zens t rpgaon have become so knowlr 

the antl skate .f 

Wa 

t this ie u credit 

Washington 

Washngton 1 i tensprograms fFat 

or providing . information to the 

cikiz 2.3.2.8 

] hope thhee o6 pro will 

continue even 

kM1bugF n the Draft EIE commirit ent pprinb willr ' eon .. and. c 

The followin g specific comments A,S made in the spirit ofmpro ng 

this draft impact statement. ih'. three volume. 1 , 00u page d.aui 

art is. foc the most part. cl..Ily written and t. ghblcally s .no. 

H.w to 

complete 

ie to f" ) d t 

tl tl t USDOE 

must a orporate the follow fig z 

^hemicai Hazard- 

The scope of the DEIS is tooThe document does not ads- 

. ...taly deal with the hundred. ofoenouaands of tons of chemical 

wastes included in tank wastes and dispersed in Hanford sells. The 3.1.6.1 

hazards of chemical contaminationno less real and urgent then

e 


JUL 22 1986 t0lb 


EM 

JUL 221986 B01b 

3.5.1.57 

2.4.1.1 

2.4.1.17 

2.5.7 

thehatard. of radioactive materials. USDOE must i entorP"IVISION 

chemi.[a1. contamination and each di svosal alternative must 

specifically address chemical contamination. 

Sour= 

The Draft EIS appears to make o v erly optimistic performance assumeents 

for soil barriers. The validity of the DID i. in j .... rdyif 

the a ailable Iitarat are has been misrepresented, Barrier performancemust 

v be substantioted by Previousstudies and . actual exper - 

F'athway antl travel time cal cul ati gns are mean ngl ass until 

N.-: or by is substantiated.' 

Comoli ante With 5a f e_^Lyp yr g 

We Are enod that the USDOE emphasis o stab ilizatio. n o{ tanks 

1. contrary to the Nuclear Waste Policy Pct multiple barrier" 

approach which regwres stabilization of bath the container and the 

USDOE .... h leads to 

[ 

of sHanford groundwater. Contamination 04cgroundwater is contrary n 

to I state Iaw. In the final EIS, USDOE should .0,.a to comply with 

a3 appropriate state laws to protect public health and the environment. 

Comp l iance Wi[h the National Env ironmental Policy Act 

In the final impact statement. PEEPS net specifically identify the 

,.pacts n4 "the" proposal as required by the National Env, run ... tel 

Policy Act. The u of "boundinq assumptions" to cover a range of 

impacts o 'a It atrves is net acceptable. Delayed records o4 

decision will require, as 

, supplemental EIS with an 

opportunity for citizen comment. mu 

The draft document calls for a system to mark the boundary of the 

actual disposal sites. ISSUE describes what It calls "actual disposal 

sites" which would cover 32 square miles. In or opinion, 

not all the 32 square miles .must be off limits 4Prever.. Only that 

land that is irretrievably contaminated by dangerous wastes should 

be written off. 'USDOE must establish a Separate, public pr ... as to 

condemn land prior to writing it off. 

Ef{act an Other Degisions WM DIVISION 

Health and safety ismue, must be the mclor factor in the cleanup of 

defense wastes and indecision% leading to the selection of a site 

for Beol odic disposal of high-level waetes. Fla. .11 indi c.tigna r 

the decision to indefinitely postpone work on a second repository 

was based, in part, on USDOE data which assumed single shell waetes 

ou Id not go toa repe.i[ary. 1 4 the decision was influenced by 

such an sumpti on, there will a re ly be added pressure by USDOE to 

stabilize the single-shell tank Wastes in place. In addition, the 

e of such data to make a decision on the second round repoaitory 

raises serious questions about the validity of the geologic repository 

alternative for single-ahell wastes. The spirit and intent of 

the National Environmental Policy Pct requires consideration of 

valid alternatives. The final EIS must clear up this confusion and 

.,,at clearly D0r... the impact of single-oh.11 Wastes on the 

design and construction of a reposltory--wherever it is built. The 

final document must include specific information an the number of 

canisters of glassified waste USDOE expects to extract from singleshell 

tanks. 

Cone ii I iDO i 

In c nclusion, I support strongly USDOE's efforts tom veaheatl o 

kev elements of the Hanford clea This includes ontld nine 

research and preliminary design work: an the glassificat ion and 

grot facilities. The state of Washington will work to forge a. 

coalition to support cleanup funding, 

The Washington State Nuclear Waste board will testify At the 

Seattle meeting and the board will submit detailed comments on or 

bebore the August 9 deadline. 

Governor Gardner and I thank you for this opportunity to comment 

2.2.3 

3.3„2.1 

2.1.7 

3.;3.5.3 

ability[o Monitor 

2.1.7 

USOOE must, in the final EIS, evaluate the : impact of defense wastes 

on the atiility to monitor a proposed repository. This monitoring 

especially important in the earlier postclosure years. It is 

obvious that even con sideration of a repository requires the bast 

po.si his cl..... .4: defense ...i.e. -

All 

ill; 

11'7 

To: Department of Energy, Hanford Waste Site Hearing, July 8, 1986 

Subject: Production and atorago of nuclear materials 

Prom: Gretchen de Grasse, 137 Whitman St., Walla Walla, 99362 

Given the contempt of the Reagan administration for the 

United Nations and the World Court , and the contempt of the world 

for the Reagan administration; is is reasonable to doubt th e control 

of nuclear weapons by the United States or others like us. 

N 

U'1 

[T 

2.1.1 

2.5.6 

The Department of Energy and the Reagan administration have 

been cavalier in their treatment of the public and its elected 

Given the events at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, it is 

reasonable to doubt the safety of the N-reactor 

representatives. On Monday, July 7th, Congressman Sid Morrison said Given the duplicity of the Department of Energy about 

that a Washington State lawsuit and congressional legislation will emissions at the Hanford site, it is doubtful whether "Grandma's 2.5.5 

probably fail to take the Hanford nuclear reservation off the list Cookies" should be stored there. 

of three contenders for. the nation's first high level nuclear waste 

repository. If a lawsuit brought by the state of Washington and 

Reasonable doubt means that the re is debate an at least 

congressional legislation are demand to failure, then what is th e 

two aides. A superior, we know best, attitude taken by the Departpurpose 

of this hearing?. A cartoon in last week's New Yorker (JUne30th) Out of Energy and President Reagan is inappropriate and unhelpful. 

expresses . the contempt of agencies like the Department of Energy and 

I beg the Department of Energy not to risk human life and our 

the Pentagon for the public: One general to another in a closed 

enclecament over debatable. issues. The generation of nuclear waste 

meeting says "No, no. When I say this new secret weapon can slip past 

should cease until the debate is resolved. 

their defenses undetected, I;m not referring to the Russians, I'm 

referring to Congress." It is wrong that the public moat beg for 

mercy before a governmental agency that has no legislative or judicial 

authority. 

Safe public policy requires that no new nuclear wastes 

should be generated until a safe storage and monitoring system 

is created. The N-reactor, which produces weapons grade plutonium, 

should be shut down immediately on general principles. We already 

manufacture and sell too many weapons.. During the fiscal year 1985, 

the United States sold more than 11 billion dollars worth of weapons 

to 115 countries an a government to government basis. During the 

same period, under the Am. Export Control Act, the United States 

sold over t billion dollars worth of weapons in private sales to 167 

countries. Some of the countries are not friendly to each other, o 

to us. It would be safer to send cherry bombs in diplomatic pouche s. 

than to continue making weapons grade plutonium for defense or sale. 

RECEPrw CQE-Ri 

-.. .. _ 

Rt:I.CIJLU LJ^RL 

1UL221986 g9. 

WMDIVISION 0lt7 

JUL 22M6 6117 

WM DIVISION

LM 

. 

. 

Hl 

V continue to cause. 

nur./ea- was/u and any GiAar d—swe.. /,°-/a,t lve. -Ja 

This 

YfiC SO'{' 0,4 L3e(PcrL °/ _)V,e -/n /.zr /!"/a guaranty of safey sounds familiar. In the February 1906 issue 

vid 

Of 7/,e Nar rW/ e, Of Soviet Life magazine, Ukranian Power Minister Vitulli Sukorov said 

_17 

that "There was one chance in 10,000 years of a meltdown." As we all know, 

two months Dater Chernobyl blew. The N-Reactoq. like Chernobyl has no 

G1 14ud.., t. ParferJOn 

dome and has a graphite-moderated core and is being called less Safe than 

119 

70 bee _ N nA'd 2 W kJ 

^q , T /y ^, /96G 

Department of Energy Hearing -.July 8, 1986 RECEIVED DOE-RL 

-73, /s f,,o /e e{' J6 ' Wa,77w .-/- /.vw e, .fin cs ,^. -/a rerp=,.$ Environment Impact Statement JUL 2 2 686 6(l9 

'e Y/+e 

,land"" Awict Z.jope

t e 

119 

1Z0 

Page 2 

thing in a town that doesn't exist anymore. 

The Impact statement gives a population report of the people in an 

80-mile radius of Hanford. This is the danger distance from Chernobyl to 

Kiev or Hanford to Walla Walla where 

I live. 11 points out that we are 

a low-population area, therefore eligible for risk. Low-population is 

not No-population. The inclusion of this low-population report in 

the same report stating a "presumed zero risk to public" of nuclear 

wastes Is a contradiction in the report of itself. 

The young people of the Northwest ask for safety for our future. 

2 .2.1 The existing and future nuclear wastes must be neutr;Hzed. 

The N-Reactor so like Chernobyl must close. 

2 .5.6 Please avoid a mass exodus of people from the Northwest. We love 

this area and wish to stay and raise our families here. 

1--t 

Ln Lisa Lyon. 

CO 

jU7 6 rd-/9kd^, 

C&,qz LLl vx?, Gz 

f =-IVED DOE-RL 

DOE Richland Operations Office JUL 221936 O1a06 liJmy 1986 

ATTN k A. HOIWn/EIS 

Waste Management Division WM DIviSON pl/3 


1 am wri ting W express my opinion concerning the DOE s draft Environmental 

Impact S ta tement en titl ed' Disposal of Hanford Defense H1911-Level, Transuranic, 

and Tank Wastes and Mash tc raise the following points: 

1! THE DEPT. OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SHOULD RE REQUIRED TO 

MEET AT LEAST THE M1141MUM SAFETY STANDARDS REQUIRED OF COMMERCIAL 

REACTORS, BOTH FOR THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND THE DISPOSAL 

OF NUCLEAR WASTES. I believe it is the responsibility of the United S ta res Federal 

Government to protect its citizens Irom internal as well as external threats to their 

health and well being. !therefore

a,1i 5 

q.d 

120 nu 

3.5.5.28 

3.3.2.1 

3.3.2.1 

3.5.5,14 

2.3.2.5 

2.3.2.9 


JUL 221996 b17pA 

WMDIVISION p2/ 3 

3) ARE RADIOACTIVE DAUGHTER ISOTOPES INCLUDED III TABLES IS 2? Tables 1 

&2 ip. L i 1& 12) are difficult to unders'and. For instance. Americium-241 is a 

radioactive decay product of Plutomum-239240, and yet it is not shown to 

increase as Plutomum Decays Were radioactive decay products computed into 

Table 2. or does trolly depict the mitial quari of radioactive isotopes? If not 

included already, please recompute to accurately reflect no total quantities of 

Isotopes. 

4) OPTIONS 2 & 3 ARE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL AND DOTN ARE UNACCEPTABLE. 

The reference option (cption 3) is only a different name for onsite etabillzaGOq 

(option 2). If one look_ at the numbers, it is clear from the reference (obtain 3) 

(bat the DOE plans to dispose of all pre-1 070 waste (Which is vu Molly all of the 

present defense wastcl and even some of the post 1970 wasw by m-place 

stabilization (option 2) 

a) Wit of the plutonium generated and extracted by the defense department 

Was done between 7):; and 1972, No enaction NRS done between 1972 and 

19h;, The reference octlon plan. to Stabilize in place all waSW generated prior be 

.1970, and much of what has been generated since then (see p. B.24). Therefore, 

option 3 is just a fancy name for o'Mi0h 2: 09th more than 90% of the total defense 

waste being stabilized in place, as outlined in option 2. Therefore, back options 2 & 

3 are totally unsuitable. 

5) WHY ARE THERE NO CONFIDENCE iNTERVALS FOR ESTIMATES? One cannot 

foresee even the nee; future with 100% certainty, and predicting events 10,000 

years into the future is even more difficult Why then d: Lee EIS. tables lack 

confidence inter vas or. the estimates? For instance, on p, an of Vol. I It is stated 

that Downstream users of the Columbia River would mcur at moat one health effect 

associated with the disposal of ctasto over the 10,000 years This is only one 

example of the consistent lack of confidence intervals for estimates. It is 

impossible to evaluate the data Dresentted without soma idea of the uncertainties 

Involved- 95%certain(•.' levels should be DrSSented for all tables representing 

eslintatei c" at a:c D.- jmei tanntie'a invclved in Four flea:[!: rmpa(t estimates? 

How were these Eserm:ned^. 

6i AN INDEPENDENT STUDY AND INDEPENDENT EIS IS IMPERATIVE BEFORE ANY 

DECIMNS BE MADE CONCERNING NUCLEAR WASTE DI SPOSAL. It violates standard 

scientific practices to have the agency responsible for the generation of the nuclear 

ar sm also responsible for evaluating the health and environmental impacts of 

nuclear waste generation and storage. It is impossible to evaluate the scientific 

data presented without independent input and review. It is imperative that an 

independent agency be charged with data collection, analysis, outline of options 

and production of the EIS 

RECEIVED D0E RL 

JUL22M 012fip 

WMDIVISION 

Is 3/3 

7) NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN UNTIL LESS HAZARDOUS TECHNIQUES ARE 

DEVELOPED FOE THE RETRIEVAL, PROCESSING, AND STORAGE OF THE PRE-1970 

DEFENSE WASTES. It it clear from the Wordme throughout the EIS that the DOE 

does not yet have techniques for the safe ret r ieval and disposal of the pre-1970 

defense wastes (see p. L8, 1.17 for examples(. Therefore, no action should be 335.4 3.3.5.4 

taken until technologies can be developed for the safe retrlev il,processing and 

storage of this wastes. It is unconscionable W literally sweep tills waste under a 

rug of concrete and leave future generations with the task of cleaning it up should 

the DOE predictions of environmental impact prove in the future to be too 

Optimistic

N 

O 

2.3,2.9. 

2.5.5 

2.2.13 

2.5.5 


ATTN R.A. HOlten/E1S 

Waste Management Division 



JUL 22186 Q121 /~ 

WMDIViSIONp.1/4 

l2, .121 

6 July 1986 

I am writing to express my opinion Concerning the DOE a draft Environmental 

impact Statement entitled 'Disposal of Hanford Derense Hfgn-Level, Transuranic, 

and Tank. Wastes (EIS), and "all raise Lee following points: 

1) AN INDEPENDENT STUDY AND EIS IS NECESSARY. To respond to all the 

obleccons 1 have to the aiternaGves outlined in Me DOE. EIS would take more 

space tnan the EIS. Suffice it to say that! Cannot accept any data, probabilities, or 

conclusions presented in the EIS, since the EIS is researched and written by Lie 

same department wniclt has generated, carelessly stored, and must now try W 

clean up and dispose of the wastes. 1 believe pat no action should be taken on 

disposal of defense nuclear waste, until an INDEPENDENT agency can both examine 

the original data. critique the DOES EIS. erxiore other retrieval and disposal options 

and make recommendations as to hew the defense waste should be retrieved and 

- disposed It is unconscionable that there has been no independent study on wastes 

as hazardous and long-lived as the defense nuclear wastts. 

a) This nation was built on the ideal of Separation of powers: separation of Church 

and state, and separation of judicial; legislative, and executive bodies of 

government. How then can this same nation set one department, the DOE, with the 

Sisk of goner ttmg, monitoring, staring, and ultimately disposing of its own 

hazardous materials, This is clearly a conflict of interest. No matter hew noble the 

purpose and how Strong the desire for obie

3.3.5.4 

3.3.4.2 

2.5.6 

121 


duL 22 1986 

d(ZI 

WM DIVISION 

P.,3(4 

4) NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAXEN UNTIL SAFE TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE RETRIEVAL, 

PROCESSING; AND RETRIEVABLE STORAGE OF THE PRE-1970 DEFENSE WASTE ARE 

DEVELOPED. The defense department created this waste, and sho uld be held 

responsible for disposing of ALL its wastes in the same manner as that required of 

commercial nuclear reactors. It is clear that the DOE does not yet have the 

exper ti se to do this safely (see p. 1.8 & 1.17). 

a) Therefo r e, no ac ti on should be taken on the long-term disposal of the defense 

wastes until technologies can be developed to re tr ieve and package the pre-1970 

waste in a manner suitable for deep geologic disposal, and should be retrievably 

stored for at least 50 years. 

b) Because the DOE cannot yet safely s tore me nuclear waste genera ted by 

Plutonium ezva-UOn, the N-Reactor and PUREX plant should be shut down and no 

new waste genera tod until such ti me as technologies for the packaging and 

disposing of me waste In the same manner as for commercial nuclear waste are 

developed. 


dUL 221986 Gtzl 

WM DIVISION PAM 

e) 1 know the BOB would li ke to argue Nat this IS9ue Is not relevant to me defense 

waste EIS, but I believe me two issues are inseparable. By set ting the precedent of 

'm-place stabiliza tion' for the defense waste, they are pav in g the way to ex tract 

Plutonium from the spent commercial fuel at Hanford, thereby turning the more 

easily disposed of commercial waste into the same high-volume liq uid, sludge, and 

solid waste that the defense department cannot yet dispose of safely. If it can 

sweep 40 ye ar s accumulation of defense waste under a rug of con crete, as options 

2 & 3 intend to do, it can just as easily sweep a ll the commer ci al waste under the 

same rug after it has been reprocessed to remove the plutonium and uranium, 

Whether for warheads or breeder fuel. 

--It is therefore imperative that commercial nuclear eastte not be s tored at 

Hanford, and that defense waste be subje ct to the seine disposal prac tices as are 

curren tl y requ ired for spent commercial fuel. 

Sincerely, 

121 

2.1.3, 

3.3.2'.1 

2.1.1 

2.2.7 

5) HANFORD:S INAPPROPRIATE AS WELL AS UNSUITABLE FOR STORAGE OF BOTH C.S. Weiler 

DEFENSE AND COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR WASTE Because plutonium iscurrentlya 224 N. Bellevue Ave. 

2.13 . i•asto product of the commercial industry and the desired end product of the 


b+ defense department. commercial fuel should under no circumstances be s tored at a 

C71 

defense faci li ty. THEREFORE. HANFORD SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM 

•'' 

CONSIDERATION AS A REPOSITORY SITE FOR SPENT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR FUEL! 

To s to re the commercial waste at Hanford is yet another viola ti on of the separa ti on 

C: peWel'$ Jn WhIt11 tills na JJn pfldee !iB21f It also violates our 40 -year policy of 

separa ting Me peaceful and destruc ti ve uses of me atom and Is an open Invita ti on 

to other na ti ons to make weapons out of their commercial fue l . 

a i No government will believe we do not use spent commercial fuel for warheads 

"'hen a-^s rich pmtonmm resource is located in the middle of a defense fa cility, 

2.1. 3 J ev.n If wt 11 11 not use it for warheads' There are sufficient non-defense sites 

37all3bie if ne ticr. that th ere is no need t9 locate commercial waa to at the only 

defense faci lity in the en ti re na ti on that is reprocess ing spent fuel for warheads 

(unless the g5*efo:nent. mteu-9 5 to do so). The fact that th e DOE elevated Hanford 

from a low posi tion on Me list of available sites, passing over more suitable sites 

based on safety, supper Ls the no ti on that Hanford is being chosen as a commercial 

pluWmum-extrac tion site (either for bombs or breeder fue l) rather man a 

,cmmercial N2ste s torage site 

b) What assurance call the DOE give the American ci tizens and me rest of the 

world that spent commercial fuel vnll not be processed in to plutonium for 

2. 211.3 Wa:heads is the commercial waste is s to red at Hanford? I realize that there is 

legislation to prevent th is, but congress co uld change me legisla tion, and 

' 

ever: 11 It does not. the DOE could pla ce a blanket of 'National Security' over the site 

a.i reprocess the spent commercial fuel wi thout permission. How can this be 

prevented it the commer ci a l waste is located on a defense site?

1212 122 

Sonia Trapani. 1405 School Avenue, File. Walla Walla, Wash inginn 993u1 

3 

3 

1 alb a mother and a homemaker and I speak far the families ad future 

families of the Northwest. The people of the Northwest are being selectoo 

by the D.O.E. to be a National Sacrifice Area. The resident s xa. ders to 

face the dreadful reality o£ the double nuclear peril are frightened. 

The double peril is 1) the thusfar irresolvable nuclearwaste problem and 

2) the Chernobyl-like Hanford N Neactoo xh ch is loch tied on the Columbia 

River. 

T he DOES environmental impact statement has tour unacceptable options 

and are a-pretense. at having a. permanent solution to the nuclear waste 

P roblem. 

Here are the four options given 

1 .1 1) Deep geological disposal means digging down 9 0 0m to bury the 

J e1 1 

retrievable waste . in barrels. Pass lag thrmgb oa, ater supply Involve , . 

the risk of accidental contamination. Thera is also no known substance 

I-a for barrels that can permanently hol d the histly corrosive Toxic waste. It 

i s dishonest to presume that these containe rs will not soon leak and 

ultlmataly totally corrode. The current barrels in use s e 1970 if. 

rabbi mull, leaking. In fact, that Is why double-Inner barrels are now 

used which face the same dilemma. 

2) In-p1aC s i a bl lizatio n_ - . What a joke! No ans currently knows 

how to "Stabilize transuraniswastes'. All of the waste prior to 19 7 0 

.as due ll ed into unlined its to soak into our porous ble.1tic sell. This 

3.3.2.1 so-called non-retrievable waste' presents a grave danger to The peopl e . 

of the N.H., the groundwater and the 1,21 1 mile-long r I cambia River. it 

Is a pretense for you to put a barrier of .concrete it and call Hsg 

it 'stab liied". These wastes just be retrieved and neutralized. Until 

You can do that, you do not have a permanent storage solution. 

3 .3.3.1 3) A combination 

g of above two -- two r ngs dealt make right! 

3.3.4 .1 4) Leino av -- i3 The liousokeepIa, of the DOE has been so, Ii Ali, l 

a c o py . 

Hazardous wastes have been rare less ly and larpo re ri I .^tered 

u 

- 

JUL 221986 61'fi. 

-.ahead Its and now one of our opt io ns is to leave it as 11 is. we 

are not talking about spilled milk, but we era talking about the greatest 

hazard man has aver created. 

The most disturbing aspect of lhuf impact statement Is 'het 

west is being used as a scapegoat. The DOE is warming us up to becoming 

the National dumpsite. If you take a map of the United States and visual- 

2. 1. 1 

ize It as YOUR home In Washington D.C., imagine that you have the most vile, 

obnoa lo p s rubbish to dispose of that nobody else wants. Where would you 

nut it? ... in the furthest corner of your prope rt y .... in fact that Is 

exactly what pies do! 

We in the Northwest deserve as much protection as more populated 

areas in the country. We should not have to c rry a disproportionate r ilk 

or Federal operations. The impact statement lies and 

all there Is zero 

health risk to the public in all four options. What prospective scientist 

mould pass his thesis in school if he 

tile 

princi p led as you did in the impact 

statement -- "p_s_ d thril l, risk zee. . In fact, no one in t hi s c .airy 

ex ce pt the DOE believes that since no one else in the country wants a 

..umps il'e. A Senator said, there is the NIMIIY syndrone all over -- Not 

In My Back Yard! 

would 

(resident Re-agan h m e f o= ured the p..pi. of the Ens: the' they 

have 

n el. dumpsite Obviously, he is aware of t ile . danger to 

'hem. Iron sly, they have a more suitable granite rock sell. The 

g rtbwcst as e',idabge .d habitat! The Chernobyl'type N Reactor at 

fmnfbrd must close. The s alleei n retr ewnI,I, v must he ret r icl. 

antl neutralized.. Impossible? Then you MOST NOT process more plutonium. 

There already has been enough prodaaAd to !ltt y the. whole ea rt h. 

Until nue.lear waste can he lout p =a that 1 '1' c an safely be in the 

backyard of Washington CC, Los Angeles ?nd New York, the Northeast CANNOT 

Ie. !felt to become a Nat'ewl sa rir--e-Area RECEI'Jei: DO[.RL 

JUL 22 1986 

Olai 

[ ^s 

2. J .`v

d ! d a 5 6 

9_ :^v`s 

Im 

F_m 

FY "'L `^ A â..i 

Ûof ^cI l .o.( 1ÂLl( 

- 

a 

4— 

G 

a 

LAJgII,g4Iyya 

MY NAME IS FRANCIS J.TRAPANI. I RESIDE IN WALLA rL'Â. VI 

AM A PRACTICING CHIRDPRACTOR, AS WELL AS A PROFESSOR OF 

CLINICAL 14UTRITION AE WESTERN STATES COLLEGE IN PORTLAND, 

OREGON, O11 THEIR POST GRADUATE FACULTY. 

I SPEAK NEITHER AS A GEOLOGIGTOOR A NUCLEAR PHYSICIST, BUT 

AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THOSE WHO CANNOT BE HENE AT THIS TIME 

.... THOSE PEOPLE WD COULD OCCUPY THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOR THE 

NEXT 10,000 YEARS, 

14ADE 8,000 YEARS AGO. WRITING WAS INVENTED AND FIRST USED 5,000, 

YEARS AGO. THE WHEEL GAS FIRST USED 5,000 YEARS AGO. CHAT IF 

MESOLITHIC RAN, THROUGH NONE ¢WINK, HAD DEVISED A PUTRID TOXIN 

WITH A "HALF-LIFE" OF 10,000 YEARS? WHAT IF THAT TOXIN HAS 

WZ 

POLLUTING WORLD NOW? CHAT COULD WE THINK OF THEN?. 

WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO PRODUCE A SUBSTANCE SO TOXIC, SO 

DEADLY, SO LONG-LASTING, THAT IT COULD AFFECT OUR SIOSPHERE FOR 

A H014DRED YEARS . LET ALONE 10,0001111 

Ol 

GJ 

4J 

1= 

a 

0 

O 

U 

C 

VIE AGE TOLD THAT PLUTONIUII, PRODUCED IN THESE NUCLEAR 

REACTORS, ONLY 03L OF THE MANY BI-PRODUCTS, WILL GIVE OFF 

RADIATION FOR 250,000 YEARS, 095 THAT'S IT'S HALF LIFE ..... 

THE TINE NECESSARY FOR IT TO DECAY TO 1/2 ITS ORIGINAL 

CONCENTRATION IS 24,600 YEARS. 

BUT, YOU SAY YOU HAVE DAYS OF HANDLING IT. HEALLY?? THERE 

CAN BE ONLY TUO EKPLAINATIOHS FOR THE FOUR CHOICES YOU OFFER IN 

YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT STATEMENTS 

111 YOU EXPECT TH E' PUBLIC TO BE STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE IT. Z . 5. 5 

iwur 

121 YOU AO E. SW PEN Ef:O UGH TO BELIEVE IT YOURSE LFS. 

THESE FIGURES STAGGED MY IMAGINATION AS I'It SURE THEY HAVE 

STAGGERED THE IIIAGINATOIIS OF THOSE 11X0 CAME UP NITH THE FIGURE 

OF 1N,ODO YEARS AS THE HALF-LIFE OF THE HASTE THAT IS EXPECTED TO 

BY BURPED AT ANY NUCLEAR REPOSITORY. 

SURELY, IF YOUR CDNTAIIIEBG ARE LEAKING ALREADY, IN. LESS 

THAN 30. YEARS, DO YOU . REALLY BELIEVE THAT DOUBLE CONTAINERS HILL 3.1.4.9 

LAST FOR 10,000 YEARS? 

ALTHOUGH I'N SURE TVAT THE FIGURE OF 10,000 YEAR HALF-LIFE 

I6 A PROFOUNDLY INACCURATE ESTIIIATE, I WOULD LIKE To GIVE A 

CONCEPT. BE JUST ROY! LONG 10,000 YEARS REALLY xS. 

IF 11E LOOK BACK IN TINE. lIE60LITH2C MAN WAS HUNTING 1'IITH 

FLINT-TIPPED SPEARS 10,000 YEARS AGO. THE FIRST POTTERY HAS 

KC::3 "tr - 1 _iL 

IF THE RADIOACTIVE -MATERIAL ALREADY BEING FOUND III THE 

COLUNBIA RIVER SILT I5 EVEN RON A POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD, 00 3.5.4.4 

YOUP HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THE COLUIIGIA RIVER AREA WILL BE 

HABITABLE BY THE YEAR 2500 ..... OR HOW ABOUT IN 10,000 TEARS 

USED THE REST OF THE FILTH FINDS. ITS LAY INTO THE PFK LAYER 

AND INTO . THE GIVER? 

RErE '- L' DWRL 

JUL 22 10 iS I Z.5 - 

JUL22 1W p12 5 - WMDfY14ON 

\51A2O:VISION

i t 

123 12 ^ 

Shirley Hagman 

123 East Maple, Waffle Walla 

1 /0/ 86 Nuclear Waste Hearing 

R72 

1--• 

'P 

- 

OBVIOUSLY, THOBE PUSH114C FOR THE USE OF THE NORTHVIEST AS 

THE RATIONS NUCLEAR DUMP BITE, ARE GOING BO TO KEEP IT OUT OF 

My memo Ss Shirley Segmesand I live in Wa12a Walla. I have here In 

4 tad a petition Signed by a maser Of people front Walla Walla and 

a few from outlylag area. much as Mlltoe-yr.emter Cr.ge.. 

THEIR Wllg BACKYARDS[ Oh. petition leads as follow, Î strongly obleat to the possibility of Bamford, 

being Moses ad the lomtlon for a i for the ane • s highh--level 

vae lt s el Tho r. is mo ay, deLerss o 

that 

p this senate nna be 

Safely a t.r tla fatfor 10.000 years. Th e , or IDEllty of aata.a 

ited 2 WE O 

2:1, 

p ll'T. DART IT IN OUR BACKYARD p NYMpg E THE PRES ID ENT 

1 

gimhe *itiof 

g into the do se en voi Se Of pa raata 

to the el Li Deene s or of aa 

gEAGAl1 WANTS IT NEAR WASHINGTON. NGTON, O.L. OR HIS RANCH 

e and d Or Ofe h Why . Mould th e into of 

IN 

garbage 

ahiv gton be the rba ge disposal or hi 

dl.poesl f 

^[ 

W or highly d esgerOWS ante 110. 

. 

2 . 1 .1 

tiiêp aunimetryTno KO^r ^. 3 . PAlfl;u T'T NA T ;I!* 

1 CALIFORNIA. OUR LIVES ARE NO LESS SACRED THAN ANY OTHERS. NOR ft. 

The impact staremen+ 5 

n"sue 

The responses to thi s petition as darMdleln,I of all the people 

DO I WISH THIS RaffuNE 1 FILTH ON ANYONE. 

I apprea.Md, there were only a handful Mo dsallaad to S1gS. The usual 

response ne. sovethlag like thie— •Sou bat .I w1113 e - 

Mr. insert ions .(Mike Eaerevse) on es Still that the opinions of too publls 

THERE Z6 p FIFTH ALTERNATIVE ATIVE FOR YOUR ENVIRONMENTALENTAL IMPACT 

x111 have little or no Snflumae oa the dealeion levelling this high-level 

ONMENT 

s in Kraal I 9 

STATEMENT AND THAT IS, IF YOU CANNOT NEUTRALIZE IT,THEN STDP 

flagrantpdi sregard forithe comes=. otlthe verirpeoplegWholoxe a!feated 2. 3. 2. 12 

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 

a .... Th. -about tbo mibty of our ahildine• our giWad hildre. and their 

Mlldranand grmndohildra. Who Mould Mae nor. ri ght to Intl ...a. the 

GENERATIONS TO CaM51 

decision than the very people ago live her.. 

I Ha ve read that The Sealth and Smergy Institute In Weshingto.. O.C. 

Me determined that the Solidified lam rook at the Hanford SECS Ss too 

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 

metbane Sea Rod the potential for stress-aevead ^look berating". potential 

BUT 100 YEARS FRO11 RON; i 3 O0D YEARS FORM NOW AND YES, EVEII 

problem. have also bees identified by the U.S. G..1091a Survey. the 

Me.tIOY A.Hdegir of Guinness and She Mualrr BegolatOry. COma.mltm. 

10, 11 00 YEARS FROM NOVI AND VIE HILL HOT HAVE IT RENDERED HASTE BY 

Me are talking about material whloh Would remal. Murdoua for up to 

THOSE FOOLISH INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT SEE FURTHER THAN THEIR 

10.000 years: I do not believe for One minute thet there I S flay, possible 3.3.5.1 

wt. determine that this mete al be Safely gonflned for that period 

SELFISH HOSES. 

of time. 

Keg m mt C%M

d 

m 

125 

s(fllEm61r Pap- TM Pabkc 1AeAr;h5 -II g I km Kn,khtm , Wr 

CRNDftLE P(ER« 5J5 6PYA76T WKttit Wft t.A; wM "3(r2- 

F21'kbar 

Greetings: I • m a 'from Walla Walla. In the ongoing 

geologists and also by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The basalt 

flow of my life. 1 try to teconCile daily Stress and tension with 

is a result of volcanic activity--who can guarantee that for the 

potential threat of harm from household accidents, automobile 

accidents, crime and natural disaster• to list Just a few. Znviron- 

next 10.000 years there will be rt0 movement of the continental 

plates? Hot only is the proposed ground site unstable. but it is 

2.1.1 

mental pollution in our agricultural communi ty is a so,, and frighten- 

located so very close to one of the world's largest rivers. The 

ing phenomenon. To top off the knot of worries, the volatile state 

Columbia aquifer serves a huge region, irrigating thousands of 

of world affairs and the global economy give me cause for great 

acres and providing drinking water for large populations. 

concern. All of this negative stuff overloads my stress circuits 

And why is it that although the large majority of,higbdlevel 

causing me to indulge in the all-too-popular tendency to ignore the 

waste is produced in the eastern half of the United States that 

:looming threat of the Hanford facilities. I • d like to bury my head 

In the sand, but soon that sand could be radioactive. I also realize 

storage location is planned for the west?How can it make sense to 

transport dangerous stuff all the gray across the continent, along 

3.4,2.2 

r 

LT 

U1 

2.5.5 

that the federal p olitical machine is counting on us laid-back 

HOrthwaster..r. to remain laid-back. So although it take. gr^_at 

energy to speak out. I'm afraid to :keep silent. 

Today in Richhand at this .ublic hearing I'd like to address 

two items of enormous concern: the increasing possibility of location 

of a national high-level nuclear waste repository on the Hanford 

reservation, and the potential of a "Chernebyl-:lest", that is, an 

accident within the N reactor. 

The issue of the repository is one of safety or destruction of 

the Pacific :lorthwest--nos politics and convenience. I have read a 

..nnary of the OC8'e Graft environmental Impact Statement, and feel 

as though the fox has assured me that all the gates and s of 

routes that are populated and not alirays sunny and dry? Is the 

Population along these intended routes of transportation currently 

Informed? It is an irresponsibility of greedy negli gence that 

the plants producing waste do not also process that waste on site. 

The second item of concern here today: regards the _N reactor. 

I join the thousands of voices demanding a shutdown of this plant. 

In light of the recent accident at Chernobyl, it is treacherous to 

continue to operate a facility that has many similar structural 

deficiencies. The potential' for human error also looms large—is 

it possible that there exists the same sort of cocky self-assurance 

that was the downfall of the space shuttle program? And is there a 

real aw.raness of the p ... Ills magnitude of any error? 

2.5.6 

the Chicken coop are secure. There is a breakdown in basic language 

4.1.18 

usage when it is stated that none of the nroposals would result in 

significant impact on the environment. 

2.1.1 

The basalt rock of the area is completely inappropriate for 

..d cklw. ,, I 

storage of radioactivap waste, as has been stated byt&Mpt$5n@OERL 

JUL 221988 6125 

WM OIViSION 

ReCEPw^=^ WE-RL 

auL2219B8 . 612" 

WM DIVISION

125 12G 

2 

I realize it Ss I. my bast interest to remain Calm and polite, 

,5,6 but I feel my fear ne colating with rage at the added obscenity of 

the productionof weapons-grade plutonium from products of the 

N reactor, compounding the danger of this tecbnology. 

In summary I'd like to state the following: 1) there is currently 

at Hanford a quantity of high-level waste without a.treatment plan. 

It is an abomination to bring more, especially to an area that is 

2. 5. 6 

geologically untbbla. 2) Ta A reactor must be Shutdown 

in order to allow a thorough safety check and overhaul by independent 

.gentles. 

Meanwhile, I . 11 continue to paint my house, tend my organic 

garden, and dream on thou gh there is a future, hoping and craving 

that you art list ning. Please, listen deep within yourselves to the 

knowledge that this is larger than an economic issue; that the 

vitality of a beautif -1 portion of this aarth--our home-- is at at=ke. 

andôdne^wa 

Kr:"Env u Cc.. . 

.. JUL 22 ft 

aant of Energy 

)NMOIVI$IO N 

Richland Cpere[L Ona Office 

- 

P .. O a .. S 

WA 

R 1ntl. eM1land WA 99352 

Hanford West. Repository Environmental Concerns 

The vast. r.poaitery selection should consider not only 

the east amt 

also^8the utilization of the most rcost reffective gstate ofuthe art 2.2.4 

technological method. far ....ring the ..at.. a— contained In an 

anviornnentally mete configuration. 

Concerns: 

Structural stability of the engineered containers containing the 

Bete. to of Primary eastern. The eontelnare suet be able to : 3 . 5 .4 

insure the .ate, matter net for. It to 1., doe. not 

penetrate the container boundary and batons released to the 

environment. 

The most c affective moons of producing these containerc.is of 

or ono We must .ensure ami.n that overa to meet 

the container. should u d.flnit.ly ..at the pry cotes ant 

Criteria nns In words ores lets not let unnecessary requirements 

di.tet. coal. .1 costs tnflu .... .rit.rim. e 

ealiettc ciitarim dean not dictate the ontainer cost. However 

3.3.5.4 

The' for. the waste 1e to be pro..a .ad into ah..Id be the .at 

m 

preclude the Investigation of advanced waste form which in the 

future may be better suited for longer storage. 

stable known. using moat presenttechnology. This should at 3.3.5.3 

Leaching of theo Betes from nt aa r to the ground water way 

take hundreda of .years but is still w.lar concern of this 

nity. The n .rg praeauti.ns u 

. should be takento prevent 

this from happening. R .... earls, that ...t .££.dive.... to 

achi eve theme results In of primary concern. 

p 

3.3.5.4 .5.4 

Sln..rely. 


JUL 221988 Olv 

W DIVoON 

Gregory Adam. - 

Coneern.a.Tri-eitiea Resident

x 

8 ^ f ti 

r^ 

' 3 ^ 

4g 

L.';;., 

2'7 12'7 

Rich Sultan, llSDOE 

P.D. and 550 


Barbara Clark 


JUL 2 

P.O. Be. 122z 

21986 

Walla Walla, WA 99362 DOE DEIS JUL 221M 

WMDIVISION Clark - Page 2 BIRD 

WM DIVISION 

N 

2.5.5 

2.5.5 

2.3.2.5 

RE: DOE Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Hanford Waste 

1. The DEIS isunacceptable eca 

cre d' able no competent. 

buse the author (D OBi is neither 

The DOE lacks credibility. Recently-released documents (released, it 

should a noted, not on Tie- C initiative of the DOE itself but only as a 

Molt of public pressure) show that for the past 40 years the DOE/AEC 

has both deliberately and accidentally released large quantities of radioactive 

materials into the air, water, and soil of this region. The 

DOE/AEC did and does this secretively and without regard for the wellbeing 

of this area and those of a who live and work here. The DOE was recently 

fined for illegal, hazardous operation of the current waste site. The 

DOE's N Reactorand PUREE plant have in the last year actually increased 

their level of (admitted) emissions. 

Thus, the entire history of the DOE to this day shows a knowing disregard 

for the health and safety of this region. The public cannot be 

expected to believe that the DOE has suddenly acquired aioncern for our 

welfare. We cannot be expected to have any confidence in s report dealing 

with the safety of radioactive operations when that report bas been prepared 

by the very DOE which has consistently ignored safety in its own. 

operations. 

The DOFlackk s competence. The purpose of the DEIS is to evaluate the 

impacts E ocer tain proposed actions on the environment. Clearly, an 

Organization which would manufacture deadly toxic m terials, which would 

contaminate the air, the Water, and the soil with them, and which would do 

so with no plan for ever neutralizing them, has no understanding of our 

environment and the interrelationship and interdependence of all life on 

this earth. It is inappropriate that the DOE should prepare the report on 

the impacts 0 1 certain actions on the environment when by its own actions 

it demonstrates daily that it has no respect for the environment or understanding 

of the fact that our own lives are part of it. 

The choice of the DOE to author the EIS shows an unbecoming contempt 

for the intelligence and understanding of the public. The current DEIS 

should be rejected as untrustworthy and as incompetently prepared, and 

new one should be ordered to be prepared by an independent group whose 

primary concerns are protection of the public and our environment. 

of the DOE'sactual (as contrasted with its stated) criteria for selection 

of a commercial waste dump, no effort is going to be made to neutralize 

the wastes or otherwise dispose of them in each a way that they will in 

fact be isolated from the environment during the 250,000 years of their 3.3.4.2 

tonicity. That is; the decision being .ado throu h the limited t'on¢ 

side red in the DFIS is t at t e e is me ossebi rt of 

, 

y or fn v an event tn^[ —e ort wvl r a ma a to deva ov seen suca ênosal. 

This is uncons cion b-le. 

Monitored retrievable storage would at least not close the door to the 

possibility that we cansomehow contain the damage done by the irresponsible 

use of nuclear technology. 

The current DEIS should be rejected as having failed to consider at 

least two of the most rational alternatives for dealing with the wastes. 

cefil. Clark CIC^7 

Barbara Clark 

Bc/b 

cc: Office of Nuclear Management 

Senator Slade Gorton 

Senator Daniel Thom a 

Representative Thomas Foley 

US Governor Booth Gardner 

US DOE 

2.5.6 

3.3.4.2 

2. The DEIS fails to consider at least tworea sonable alternative 

actions. 

There was no consideration of halti roduction of toxic wastes, at 

least dingdevelopment pen 

of an adequate and safe di sposal system. As the 

cup of deadly wastes is already overflovinp, it is astonishing that no 

consideration was given to the obvious option of turning off the faucet. 

There was no consideration of Monitored Retrievable Stora e. The 

proposals considered y the DEIS sit boil down t0 leaving t e wastes where 

they are and covering them with cement so they can't be seen. Oa the basis

^$ 

j 

t 

tai' 'i 2 ?i 

^ '^ tr+` 

Lm 123 

RECEIVED 

DDgRL 

Page 2 


T6612NONE OF THE TRI-CITY INDUSTRIAL 

DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT ON SANFORD DEFENSE WASTE. 

RICHLADD, WASHINGTON 

GULP 8, 1986 

JUL 22 W6 

WMDMSION 

dUL 22 986 

WMDIVISION 612? 

RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR ACTION AND IS BEING CANDID, HONEST 

AND OPEN IN ITS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PUBLIC. IN THIS MGM 

WE ARE PLEASED WITH THE DECISION OF MIKE LAWRENCE, DOE 

RICHLAND OPERATIONS MANAGER, TO ESTABLISH A BLUE RIBBON 2 • 3 .2. 1 2 

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMPOSED OF A CROSS SECTION OF 

CITIZENS THROUGH OUT THE STATE. HIS CHOICE OF THE COMMITTEE 

AND ESPECIALLY OF ITS CHAIRMAN REV. BERNARD COUGHLIN, 

N 

Co 

yr^ 

2.3.2 . 12 

M. CHAIRMAN, MY NAME IS SAM VOLPENTEST, AND I AM THE 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF SHE TRI-CITY INDUSTRIAL 

DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (TRIDEC) TRI-CITIES, WASHINGTON. WHILE 

I HAVE NEVER WORKED AT HANFORD, I HAVE BEEN VERY INVOLVED 

OVER. THE PAST. TWENTY FIVE YEARS IN SANFORD PROGRAMS. AS A 

COMMUNITY LEADER I HAVE BECOME VERY FAMILIAR WITH HANFORD'S 

ACTIVITIES; WHAT MEN ARE AND WHERE THEY ARE HEADED. 

OUR âEPBER5HIP IS COMPOSED OF THE AGRICULTURAL, 

COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR SECTOR, THE 

CITIES, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, COUNTIES AND PONT DISTRICTS IN 

THE TRI-CITIES. OUR MEMMM ARE DEDICATED TO THE PROMOTION 

OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF OUR REGION. I AM 

PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY TO PRESENT THE VIEWS AND COMMENTS 

ON BEHALF OF TRIDEC. 

FRANKLY, WE ARE PLEADED TO SEE DOE COMING OUT WITH THIS 

E-I-S FOR THE DEFENSE WASTE STORED AT SANFORD. WE BELIEVE 

THE GOVERNMENT BAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GET ON WITH SAFE 

DISPOSAL OF THESE WASTES. WE ARE ENCOURAGED THAT WE 

PRESIDENT OF GONEAGA UNIVERSITY WAR EXCELLENT. WE ARE SURE 

THIS COMMITTEE MAN PROVIDED DOE WITH SO ME EXCELLENT ADVICE 

AND DIALOGUE. 

WE WOULD LIRE TO SEE DECISIONS THAT WHEREVER PRACTICAL, 

MARES THE USE OF MISTING FACILITIES TO MINIMIZE COST. 

HOWEVER, MOST IMPORTANTLY AND WE EMPHASIZE THIS POINT, THE 

.DISPOSAL WORK MUST BE DOME IN A MANNER TO ENSURE WORKER 2.2 • 1 

SAFETY. COMMUNITY-SAFETY AND THE PROTECTION OF OUR 

ENVIRONMENT.' THESE DECISIONS MUST BE TECHNICALLY SOUND -WE 

MUST NOT LOOK FOR THE CHEAPEST ANSWER - WE MUST LOOK FOR 

BIGHT ANSWER. 

REGARDING DISPOSAL OF SINGLE SHELL TANK WASTE, IT IS 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT DOE HAS ALL THE APPROPRIATE ANSWERS 

PRIOR TO MAKING A FINAL DECISION. IF THE WASTE CAN BE 

DISPOSED OF SAFELY IN PLACE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH. ALL 

APPLICABLE WASHINGTON STATE AND FEDERAL EPA ENVIRONMENTAL 3. 3. 2. 1 

REGULATIONS, SO BE IT. HOWEVER, IF THE WASTE CANNOT BE 

DISPOSED OF SAFELY IN PLACE, THEN IT SHOULD BE REMOVSp, 

REGARDLESS OF COST AND SENT TO A REPOSITORY. IN EITHER 3. 3. I . 1 

n

3 .. 

g 

g 

jky 

Sw 

6 

128 

Page 3 

- RECEIVED DOE-RL 

JUL 221986 

Page 4 


JUL 22 SW 61bf 

EVERT DOE MUST ANSWER THE TOUGH ENGINEERING AND SAFF.^fYIVISION 

FUNDING COMMITMENT FOR THESE DISPOSAL ACTIONS SO AN T&NIDIVISION 

QUESTIONS PRIOR TO MAKING A FINAL DECISION. 

PROCEED ON A MEANINGFUL SCHEDULE. 

OUR GREATEST CONCERN IS MAT THIS WORK MAY NOT RECEIVE 

ON BEHALF OF TRIDEC WE THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY 

2 2.9 

ADEQUATE LEVELS OF FUNDING. IT IS VITAL THAT DOE AND 

CONGRESS MOVE FORWARD AT ONCE WITH ADEQUATE ADDITIONAL 

TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS. 

FUNDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY DISPOSAL ACTIONS.. WE 

ARE NOT SUGGESTING THE BEST METHOD FOR DISPOSAL OF THESE 

WASTES BUT WHATEVER SELECTION IS MADE IT IS MEANINGLESS IF 

NOT IMPLEMENTED IN A RESPONSIVE TIME FRAME. SPECIFICALLY, 

3.1-8.9 

WE DO BELIEVE THAT DOE MUST MEET ITS 1995 STARTUP SCHEDULE 

FOR THE SANFORD WASTE VITRIFICATION PLANT. DOE MUST FULLY 

SUPPORT THIS MUCH NEEDED FACILITY WHICH WILL PROVIDE THE 

CT 

ko 

CRITICALLY NEEDED CAPABILITY TO PROCESS NANFORD'S HIGH-LEVEL 

LIQUID WASTE. 

IN THESE DAYS OF GRAIR4-RUDMAN AND RAMPANT EUDGET CUTS, 

DOE MUST REDOUBLE ITS EFFORTS TO ENSURE THIS AND OTHER HIGH- 

PRIORITY PROJECTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SLIP THEIR SCHEDULES 

2.2 L . 9 

DUE TO LACK OF FUNDING. TRIDEC OFFERS TO SUPPORT YOU IN 

YOUR EFFORTS TO SOLVE A SITUATION THAT IS A NATIONAL 

PROBLEM. ONLY THROUGH THE TOTAL CONNI MENT OF ME TO A 

SCHEDULE AM PROPER FUNDING WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN 

A SPIRIT OF CO-OPERATION WHICH HAS EXISTED BETWEEN DOE AND 

THE COMMUNITY FOR NEARLY THIRTY YEARS. 

2.3.2.8 

3.3.5.4 

IN SUMMARY WS APPLAUD âDE'S OPENNESS AND THE PUBLIC 

HEARING PROCESS IT IS CONDUCTING STATEWIDE. THE FINAL 

OPTION THAT DOE CHOOSES MUSTNAKE THE BEST ENGINEERING AND 

SCIENTIFIC SENSE AND IT MST ALSO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE

15 7 3 

129 129 

H 

V 

O 

3.2.6.1 

3.2.6.1 

3.2.6.1 

My name is Grew Gardner. I live at 1212 HE Stases In 

Portland. I an a father of tso, an attorney and President of 

the nonprofit corporation, Pmdah, i.e., which stands for 

•People Against Nuclear Dumping at Hanford.' 

I m here to tell the Hepartmmt of Energy that its 

practices at Hanford are the most serious current threat to the 

prosperity of thin city and this region. 

Your draft Environmental Impact Statement is not 

acceptable to the people of this region. 

The study ignores the socioeconomic impact of your 

radioactive- waste :management. proposals on the economies of 

Portland, the Columbia Gorge and the State of Oregon. This, we 

will not tolerate. 

TESTISONY OF ARIIREw A. GARDNER 

BEFORE DEPARTHENT OF MESSY 

OR SOOY 10, 1986 

You need. to understand that any increase in trace 

mounts of radioactivity in Columbia Main water or agriculture, 

even at statistical levels . you dem safe, will ruin the economic 

base of Our region for decades. Bost profiles are not figures 

that are impossible to calculate, for most of us involved in 

commerce . recognise that the lose of reputation translates into 

the less of income. Such things are routinely estimated by 


JUL 23 la 

V3MDIVISION 

P eople with far less resources than the WE. 


JUL231986 a!'9 

Your failvAtONSION 

consider such factors fatally flaws all of your Sanford studies. 

Second, your recommnandation for do-place stabilization 

Is also unreliable. It is based upon an untested Inch- 

1 

nology that strikes . the average person as intuitively illogical. 3.3.2. 1 

Your failures with steel tanks, and your past and current precticas 

of dumping low level waste and transuranic saute into open 

trenches, make the contamination of Columbia Mein water as 

inevitable as gravity itself. 

Covering your mistakes with five feet of new soil is 

no comedy. The contaminated soil, the leaking tanks and the 

q 

existing waste must ge removed and isolated from our ground 3.3.2. 1 

water and our river. 

We will not accept the conclusion chat full removal Se 

3.3.1.2 

too expensive. Por forty years you've spent countless billions 

at Hanford, end in so doing have polluted the enviroment there 

in a manner which would subject you to criminal liability in the 

private sector. Even today, as we sit here at this hearing your 

proposed 1987 budget continues to ignore the environmental 

probleve at Hanford. 

Smile you acknowledge that 628 of the nation's entire. 

volume of defense nuclear waste is currently stored at Hanford, 

your enviromental protection budget for 1987 allocates just 1 

1/2 percent for Hanford. The area highlighted in red on the 

chart next to me indicates the proportion Of your Environmental 

2

N a 

:. 

S 

1 29 

V 

N 

2.5.5 

2.2.14 

2.2.10 


JUL23M 

Brig 

V/M DIVISION 

Protection pie allocated for Hanford. we, in the Northwest will 

not accept a 1 1/2 percent solution for 626 of the problem. 

And we will not permit you to open a national dump for 

wants from all over the country when your 00 year record 

demonstrates you mount even handle the waste. you produce at 

Hanford now. 

The day you rejected your own internal rankings to 

recommend Hanford for the national dump, you awakened the people 

of the Northwest. And we promise you will see us at your bearlogs, 

you will see us in the court. and the legialatures, and In 

the City and County Council.. And we will fight you with every 

means at our disposal. Which brings me to my final point. 

It was Lord Acton who said a century ago "power tends 

to corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.. 

You have demonstrated that WE self-regulation will 

not work and that our political representative. in Washington, 

D.C. have given you far too much power. By changing guidelines 

rather than practices to solve problem.r by continuing to dump 

highly toxic wastes directly into the grounds by choosing to 

spend 61 billion in an attempt to disprove that which is .o 

obvious to everyone sitting in this room-that you don't dig a 

national toxic waste Awed p.L anv kind just four miles from the 

nation's second largest rivers-and by failing to adhere to 

environmental standards routinely imposed on private industry, 

you have demonstrated an Institutional disregard for the safety 

RECEFrED DOE-RL 

JUL23M Cozy 

WMDIVISiM 

of the citizens of this country, and a tendency to experiment 

with the truth': that can fairly be characterized as corrupt. 

Wee therefore, call for the creation of an EPA 

euperfund, administered outside of the authority of the DOE, to 

2.2.9 

conduct a thorough independent analysis of Hanford waste 

contamination, and to effect a oosprehensive cleanup that will 

endeavor to return the ground and Water at Hanford to the 

condition it enjoyed prior to . your introduction of radioactive 

waste. 

And we call upon our federal goverment to withdraw 

from the DOE any further authority over nuclear waste management 

at Hanford; placing such responsibility and authority with the 

Federal EPA and theWashington sad Oregon Departments of Envi- 

Mamoretal Quality. 

Last weekends I ra-read a document that has surprising 

relevance to. this.. proceeding I e d. like to quote a passage from It 

new, 

'Governments long established should 

not be changed for light and tr ... last 

causes. But when a long train of abuses, 

Pursuing invariably the same object, evince, 

. design to reduce the Pan Is under absolute 

despo timm, bt L8 thei r Ilaht, it " thei r 

d uty, to throw off such government, and to 

provide new guards for their future seemaity. 

These are the words of Thomas Jefferson Contained In 

our country'. Declaration of Independence. You, like Ring 

Georges have committed a long train of abusee. We. like Jefferson 

e . followers, won't wit still for it any longer. 

2.2.11 

2.2.13 

3 e

10: 

! . 

129 139 

•r 

.1 


•r JUL 231986 

4+ Pt chary tgee 

C - WM DIVISION 

N mar eo I close with a warning given you on behalf of 

-0 - 

JUL 2 

^ 

E 

EO 

U 

- 

the people .of Oregon.. 

we will not surrender our mmi[orment. 

we will not au[render our state smereignity. 

we will not surrender 

out democratic values and we 

Rich Holton: 

RECEIVE' 

bc0 CDE-RL 

will not surrender our children's . future to the tyranny of a 

. I am absolutely against emplo yi ag Hanford as a waste 

O .elf-regulated bureaucracy like the Department of Energy. deep. 

C.: 

^.+ 

Thank your 

3ION 

"/"DIVISION 

I have been following the nuclear situation for some 

years and with a great deal of concern. Ben have 

- avecceached themselves ea this o.e; they're handling nuclear 

materials they 

N 

don't have the resperositilitp or seam. to 

Nadeq as kelp assure safely. There have teen far too man, near 

accidents, accidents, canstruction flaws, human errors and 

political or management underhandedness to allow the public 

nay confidence is the nuclear iodumtry. 

.2 • 1 

1 

I've subscribed to The Iemistcm horning Tsituse far the 

last couple of years. Although I clip some article s 

regarding the various nuclear plants, waste sites and 

related ima ge., I'te sated all aceieles c ...... in, Hanford. 2 . 5. 5 

I've quite a file full and can see for myself that Hanford 

has a I ... y record. Dh yea, there-s the occasional PH piece 

whi ch attempts to noue.d Hanford, let theme don@ stack ap 

against the many mote ar ticles revealing Handfecd's problems 

mad shard erns. 

5 

- t -

•1 

3 

J 

' ¢ I 6 

130 1130 


JUL 23%8"0 (l ;v 

WM DIVISION 

- I could tediously list many reason. why nuclear storage the nuclear industry and its deadly wastes, then the truest 

is da.gerows— certainly .including-Ba.dfsnd . s: basalt 

afar ...t has-already ban. mods: 'm ve here at the enemy Red 

Z.i.i 

f .... fine., leakage. sad the ....felt, to the e.lumbla 

p 

liver,l 

past history of contaminate evils3ons and present 

related health .haze rd.,. etc. etc. And that with the 

be is us.• 

Ceps 

t e _ 

Victoria A. Seaver 

eueptio. of the Richland ... (it . . a .atfonal sbmm. but - - 

people will risk for the sake of ba ying mark) * so one wants - 2. 

Sanford as a national repository; indeed, a great ...y of us 413 S. Al... 13 

C 

Z .5.6 want Randford shut dews altogether, as I do. 0...... Idab. 83843 

RC n r DOE-RL 

JUL 231988 

WM DIVISION 

There are political and business fortunes to made to 

W 

_ 

• 2 . Z 

J p•Y n E 

the nuclear industry. Such personal and corporatepie[ik.' 

dan•t real{stical3Y, nor would it uses ethically, concern 

themselves with the thousands of years of terrible risks 

involved with nuclear waste storage. Short term precautions 

and lip service are criminal in view of environmental and 

human abuse, you cannot Justify contaminating air and 

water, eve. the soil of out crops, nor our communities along 

the highways where nuclear easier would be transported. 

In the .amm of -defense •. va. • t Out it when the nuclear 

industry sanctioned by the government puts us at a mare 

immediate risk than those were s.pp.sedly defending. 

o.uselve. aguim.t. I. the name at art ... ical .r technical' 

w progremm. v .•t at it who. am die from the hazards 

sarrou.ding it. If me pa ... R this suicidal firati.. with 

_ 2 - 

3_

A 

5 

ml 

x.32, 

REGEivcD 00E-RL 

JUL23SO di31 1 .+19 (^0 ^0 

Vll 

WMDNf510N 

JUL 23 06 dl3^-- / 

9. —/3 

WMDWIS!od 

^/9—/POD 

2.1.1 

3.3.1.1 

^77v ^^ „^ 0 

) 

^ /LCC^¢-verL fyE:,-^- ,ê 

V A 

3.3.5.2 

9^3/aZ-

s 

Ì V 

t;1) 

133 

V OF 

Okk Dogln CmM¢eimas 

pOpO& ^pR®^pm qN iyp^ rrqE^G}±O !1râ 

Fdwmd temY. AAnd i¢amu 

FrVa^11I"a11D. ®RLl1VLl 112oc,7 ,Aaenm 

Panandi Oryon 972041926 

SURFAU OF WATER WORKS 

/ww-L^/C^ lv^t2ee^C. rl^..I%f v lu-^t— 

î 7A^ctû^, iGSuli.0 ..G: J 

3.3.5.2 y((^^^4 ^{^ 

T^âz- 

t esevl t 

/ / D. -°-' / 

July u, 1986 

Mr. Jerry White 

United States Department of Energy 

Mail Stop FED/706 

Post Office Box 550 

Richland, Washington 99352 

HECENZO DOE-RL 

JUL23 06 6133 

WM DIVISION 

Subject: Comments on Draft EIS for Disposal of Hanford Defense Wastes 

Dear Mr. White: 

V 

LIT 

The Portland Bureau of Water Works is very concerned about the Draft Environmental 

Statement for the Dis posal of Hanford Defense. Hiah-Level. Tmmsuran ^.and a-T nk 

Wastes. _ Because - of our late notificatTion of the recent public hearing in Portland, 

we were unable to schedule atime to present these concerns in public. Although 

the text of our prepared co mm ents was submitted to you. we would like to take 

this opportunity to reiterate our concerns and offer a proposal for addressing 

these concerns. 

C) p 

N 

E^7., 

Briefly Summarizingour previously submitted comments, the Columbia River system 

is the heart of the region's water resources. In light of the porous and complex 

geology of the area, disposal of nuclear wastes at Hanford appears to have the 

potential to permanentl y impact this valuable water resource. Radiological contamination 

of the Columbia River would not only limit available options for future 

water su pp l y sources for the Portland metropolitan area. but may also threaten the 

long-term viability of existing groundwater water supplies which are influenced 

by the river. 

It is, therefore, imperative that the EIS thoroughly address potential environmental 

and economic impacts to water resources downst re am of the Hanford site. 

2.1.1 

3.2.4.1 

3.2,4.1 

We strongly reco mm end that DOE conduct a study of potential off-site impacts of 

alternatives that include Hanford as a permanent Disposal site. This study would 

include, though not especially be limited to, analysis of a worst case scenario 

of radiological contamination of the Columbia River and resulting environmental 

and economic impacts to existing and future water supplies. Evaluation of 

existing water works facilities and future water needs of the Portland metropolitan 

area would be key elements in the study. 

3.2-.4.1 

Such a study will no doubt be a Major undertaking. For comparison, we arc 

currently negotiating with the U.S. Geological Survey for the development of a

p 

,i 

-410579 

133 134 

-. Mr. Jerry White 

July 17, 1986 

Paget 

t 

City' of l,etiision 

? io ax os oxv aex ro er 

P08TjOFFILE BO% 61] 

LEWI6TON. IaFXO B35a1 

V 

. 

computer model of the Portland wellflelds. We anticipate that the study will - 

1.) 7e.11 

- 

have a total cost of $500,000 and require about three years to complete. The 

study islimited only to the hydrology and geology of the area influenced by the July 21, 1986 

wellfieid and does not even begin to address water quality issues and economic 

considerations. The study we are p ro posing that DOE undertake would, in most - 

cases. take advantage of existing, available information and, therefore.. we see 

the Portland Water Bu re au as being actively involved in the study. Mr. Rich Holton, EIS U. S. Department of Energy 

JUL 2 3 1986 O, si 

Regardless of the approach or scope for the study of downstream impacts, our 


He must be conside d in the evaluation of Hanford waste disposal options. P. 0. Be. 550 

3.2.4.1 We are the largest purveyor of drinking water in Oregon, providing drinking Richland; WA 99352 

.water. to one-third of Oregon's population. Even the potential for Permanent 

contamination re of current or futu water supplies of the Portland metropolitan 

Dear Mr. Holton: 

- 

area p sents a threat to re the long-term viability of the gion. 

i. 

The City of Lewiston appreciates this opportunity to ga 

- 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 

glad to meet with you and your staff 4o further 

tliscuss ourconcerns 

and Proposal 

disposal of defense ẇastes stared Hanford. While addresfor 

further study:' r ..... we e s our 

t.mm onto on theransp transportation of the to the sicu tes 

Sincerely. 

Our concern Centers on the use of Highway 12 from Lewiston to 

Mi la. Montana for the transportation As you know. 

Highway 

is ay. 

a , it and travel w 

waa 

way. As it follows Mw 

the Loch ea River., it its y through 

th .Bitterroot Mountams 

an a two-lane highway. c ey. Th Potential O ur danger is clear as 

Edward Tee ny 

one considers delicate The balan c e nature of the mountains, 

Administrator river and valley . The Valley's lifestyle, both socially and 

economically, are tied to the outdoors. Any disruption to this 

ET/MM/sa ^r•^ ^. ^- {,^ balance will have severe implications to Lewiston and the valley. 

cc: Mayor Bud Clark JUL 23 1986 We strongly discourage the use of Highway 12 between Lewiston and 

Co issioner Dick Bogle 

Missoula as the transportation route for the relocating of de- 

- 

Commissioner Mike Lindberg WM DI'V'ISION fense waste to its permanent location.. 

Co mm issioner Mild re d Schwab 

Co g issioner Margaret Strachan 

Thank you for your consideration. 

over 

no r Victor Atiyeh 

Senator Marl 4atfield - Sincerely, 

senator Bob :ckwnod 

1^J 

Rep. Jim Waver 

Rep. Ran Wyden. 

3 J

_ 

y ou op } op o uopeaaua8 a ]nF a uoF]e8t}qo a st 

I, pro eanlae no aa3e d.-uest> ] a}q}avod et ]t aey] ana.taq } 

.Aa lFSnaap^ . p . E .E. 

e wz rap aq rata a re ly >a m a - eat 

all ut pan}onuF Paul aq ea>aen aea}an aneq ley]ea,ea s IT . aeyl •ry 

au} Feyl le4 3 sPaezey e4l ylaon a ]anpand aealan avya 

Sul •S.H uue]saaPUn a41 l>a}gaa pino ao}aaes}yl ea6 S >xvu 

all F uoPa^poad 689 eat>n aeyd °9- m Alum, 

uy.. auop aF aty] a.,, • 68aeaaaeat.or o ...,do, I padr,orp 

a9 ] uw Agra a ]o sa>anoa aaylo ley] aujwa rap • S'H rya avyy .g 

a a 

' 4 w ... a dn - ea}a uF spuey o}o( a] put 

aauuew ery}1 ut paodsaa al ..}.R I—Ars ay] v8uaj l eya 'S-0 ayy Z 

ono, ]nys aq p,nan lue}d x ing 

ay] pue a ea8-H ayy • l e ao d et p al,suodsaa-3o aryl o] LBolouyaa] 

ea}anu 6asgp tw I. ].,I amPawaojuu a9 pinon y>a sag 

9FauodsaN do-uea1D asst>nN ao3 aa]oaa aaya >aq n u p} non 

pao3ueH • Pao9u ae a u a O0 ] 9l ut pne l dwn nor gey4 

sal a en aaa l >n . ayl do oi j ua , pal Prlrnolle aq •Are or yan 

or 'AaueH - 4 1T itgjsuodsaa uet anu 3o AaF IOa a atlopa5i5 . O aya '! 

:aau, pus a a } 

• c6enl aea Par aAenyB}y or sa}an say, I . 1 op e aodeueal 

aya huge pouaaauoaswes ln aaya8u ^pedwnp aq pu}"Af 3a 

saa u Aue a] pacodd. we I ran.. vjywnlo0 ay, ut do 8ujpua 

e Ivu3 atayalew a]sen ava a >nu ft,val Apeaals e} pao3ueH 

aaya pauj luo> aalsex Aaea Fl}w yl 8utuea>uoaAuow}aa.4 aay]e8 

w sun OI Alnr uopuelaaod uF veuYeay pav3uex ay,. io aaodand ell 

G • • J 

V O O 

- 4 'Z' 3 ' E 

' 

NOISWO MI 

y£io G Y 99fit y Z "IOf 

1088-rySZ (COS) 

ZIZL6 u.2—O 'pu. YOd 

anuantl 418 'N'H LVEZ 

epao}8 V-11 

.a],ale}u a loss, ' uaaxa evt ., aq pino 

aF pue Fpuaale .ayaaler. a 3oal }dryaa eg ret r yan st aaayl 

asna >rq a see I P c jl all uo pio3ueHa e} AM 'asel ,no awn • 

pao3ueH a,is aF9elins sow Allealuy>al a4, Bu tPU l3 ao3 glea 

4>tyn ]otl A,,,.a naeg aealanH eya ylin a —93T V ut 10u ct dwnp 

a]sen ..tams ]uauewaad e or paa.uex aapjau.1 o1 uotspap all 

^x 

'ax seep 

e 

• e]anpoad asal ana 

dalenap par ..d a..,, ay] uj IT 8unnpoad dole 

O, eanpauaaaFe 

ary walgoad aS., stya a uopnloa algteuodsaa a.— ay] 

o, paau 

saa uF .slam a4l I, 8u}aasodap aaya ana}laq 

9 • s. •S'O rya 3I NOISINICI MA 

ZS E66 'ex 'pusly>ld 

_ ado 90'O 

svopeaaO •prya}g u e 

48aau8 I . ']do, •S'H 

SI3luaatou 'tl'8 

540 0 9861 'vZ lOf 

9961 • rot Alnr 

SEZ SE -T

136 136 

t- 

14 

00 

2 , 5 

R. A. Holten/EIS 



P. O. Box 550 

Richland, We. 

Dear Hr. Holten• 

P. O. Box 462 

Shaw Island 

Washington 98286 

July 22, 1986 

Enclosed is a copy of my remark. at the hearing 

of your department on July 15th, afte rnoon 

session,at. the Federal Building in Seattle. 

It is my hope that the public outcry and concern 

about the disposal of nuclear waat.. will prompt 

rethinking and a totally new assessment of both 

siting the present supply of wastes, the techniques 

C of storage and, at importantly, the stopping of 

.6 productio of n-. materials we .imply a reunable to 

handle with safety to the Earth or its creatures. 

FEE/. 

encl. 

\vet/z^Y^^jt/^^1^^ 

1y/yours,..^^ 

[F e$eryckf E, CIA' 

aEOEY'eD POE-RL 

JUL2410 6134 

Wu DIVISION 

Comment. by Frederick E. Ellis, Ph.D. 

RECE L OL^GRL 

Public Hearing, Seattle, We. 

U.S. Department of JUL 2? 1986 

0136 

Energy 

July ner 1986 

WM DIVISION 

2-5 p.m. 

Federal Bldg. 

The study of history, if nothing else, shows the great 

contributions of man as well as his unbelievably stupid 

mistakes. In something over ai.-thousand years of recorded 

history we have reached surely the zenith of 

insanity - churning out vast quantities of highly 

toxic nuclear waste under the guise of 'defense' against 

the bogey-man of the Soviet Union; a nation, like our 

own financially broke and whose populace, like ours, 

has no wish for war. Slowly, I thick, the body politic 

in this country is getting on to this myth without which 

the output of nuclear weapons would grind to a halt. 

The deception of the public. by the military and the 

Department of Energy is as mind-boggling as it is 

self-defeating. 

Reading the Environmental Impact Statement, a threevolume 

compendium of .turgid prose and highly technical 

data stretches to the breaking point one's patience. 

The glaring omissions are evident and have already been 

dealt with by pz vio.. speakers. Noteworthy 1s the 

Alice-in-Wonderland approach to the issue of the siting 

of nuclear waste: As the Nock-turtle obse rv ed, 'You are 

guilty, now let'e have the tri.11- Now the Department of 

Energy is telling us, -We have selected the site and the 

th ree alternative. method. of disposal; now let'. hold 

a public hearings' This procedure is a betrayal of 

public confidence.. 

2.5.5 

Presently accumulated waste at be disposed of ae 

prudently as the best scientific talent can devise 

accompanied by total ...nation of the production of 

2.2.1

G 

4 i `; F4 

Y7 

136 13'7 

V 

2.5.6 

2.2.1 

=2= 

more plutonium and its attendant wastes. As the only 

space ship we occupy, namely planet Earthvwe have no 

moral right to pollute and destroy it and its hints. 

Think of the Earth as your home. Where do you stew 

x gallons of high-octane fuel in that hone; in the 

kitchen back of the wood-burning stove? in the living 

room near the fireplace? in the bedroom? The question 

is silly. You don't store it anywhere in either your 

own dwelling or the planet you .inhabit. 

So far politics has dominated the whole problem of 

nuclear waste disposal. Conspicuously lacking in the 

Department of Energysmanagement of the problem has been a 

frank, open, non-political, rigorously scientific and 

objective attack. Dish .... ty, hoodwinking of the public 

and deception have marked the department's conduct of 

its business. Like NASAA, the DOE has lost what public 

credibility it might have had. 

Since the selection of Hanford as a dump site has been 

a political decision, the abolition of Hanford as a dump 

site at be political - at the ballot box. I all on 

the body politic to repudiate, at the voting booth, the 

present administration and its Department of Energy 

and, in turn, support representative s . in the Congress., 

the Senate and the White House Who Will be sensitive 

to widely ekpressed public concern and legitimate fears. 

jar" D. White 

U.S. Dept. of East" 

West. maaap.evt Div. 

P.O. ear 550 

Richland. Weak. 99352 

Nor Rt. whits[ 

RECEIVED 'JOE-RL 

!UL a 

WMDIVISION 

A.. served titi.ss I would like to ... the vU.I..o maete 

depository site for the very high v tong-tan vuelaat waste 

I ... tad is a steel. I.eation for free huma nity, see se deep 

e P ssibl.,. such ae'the doearte of Tares. This ae.%e we end 

to ...plot. the building of the out seat pleat that converts 

the seats into solid fors i..adi.t. 1y. The present math.d 

of liquid is took...... do ... runs. 

If the locals neat Sanford are not opposed, the burial of la. 

level oas t. on eight .... froott"a. 

Theek you for this oppoit..ity to gig .y ♦ and Alen for 

providing the eospeehmsive a of p.bli. ma eti.g. on 

this important issue. Mr. D1ekeWildo's ...at pr .... tatio. 

tea ve ry interesting. 

Sincerely. 

,. rr pftî`'RA 

m1 

218 A. ft... 

Uses say, OR 97420 

march 28. 1966 

'a 0/31 

2.1.1 

3.3.1.1 

2.3.1.13 

2.3.2.8 

o1e1 

Rep. Wis. Wacrauke. 

fish. Pot Per"." 

RECEVVEt: DOE-RL 

JUL a? M6 M3b 

WM DIVISION

IM 

RECOVER DOE-RL 

Co 

O 

4- 

R. A. Holtem / EIS 

U. S. De p artment of Energy 

Richland o perations Office 

P. 0. Box 550 

Richland, Wa. 99352 

703 Beacon, 

Yakima Wa. 95901 

Jul y 13, 1986 

YDear Sir, 

RECGVc"D-DCE-RL 

JUL 25 IM 

WM DIVISION 

Reference : Draft Environmental Imp act Statement 

Disposal of Hanfor d Dart,.. H19h-level, Transuranic and 

Tank Wastes 

C 

Defense hi gh level wastes rep resent 98% of the nation's total volume 

of hi gh-level Waste and 13% of the total hi gh-level radioactivity. 

The Purp ose Of Permanentl y dis p osing of existing and future nuclear 

defens Waste is to Provide for an aPP,.e,i.t. level of Protec t 

4j 

ion of 

C the Public health and safety as can reasonabl y be exp ected. All 

p ractical means to avoid and minimize eenviromental harm should be 

taken. 

O It is umd ..t..d that the final decision on several as p ects of the 

Waste disposal Plan may be dela y 

U 

ed Penning fu rther research and 

tleveloPment. In his wa y current actions would not P reclude future 

technological developments. 

O 

C The first ste p in anal y zing the alternative dis p osal method. is to 

determine the short term effect= from retreival. trnsPorat a. t 

on antl 

Placement of wastes into the alternative Permanent storages. 

The Geolog ic Disposal Alternative he. the hi ghest Possibility for 

occup ational exPOSURS p rimaril y due to the lon ger imPlamantation of 

this alternative. The other alternatives have a much lower 

occup ational ex p osures but all are far less than naturally occuring 

radioactive sources 

The Potential for radiolo gical aceiMnts is %,,h4 j Iw the same 

operational accidents and there is no si gnificant differencebetween 

thedifferent alteratives. 

The nOnratllola4ful Im p acts - injuries, illnesses. b fatalities - in 

the Oeolo9lc Dis posal Alternative are 4 to 6 times as any due to 

Increased man-hours and travel distance required for implementation. 

All other alternatives are about equal. 

Natural resources are not in short supply and are not s 19n1 P 1cant on 

a national scale since the y are re q uired over a 15-30 y aar Period. 

Geolog ic Disp osal Al'ternati've re quires about five times more energy 

and materials then the other alternatives, 

Re garding ecolog ical imp acts the Hanfortl sites. are Alread y tlistruPted 

JUL 25 19U6 0139 

WMDIVISION 

and tem p orar y further di ... Ptlon of Plant and animal cc nits es 

would result from all alternative imPlementat ions. 'he m Geologic 

Dis p osal Alternative is the most di.ruPtlon but there is little 

si gnificant difference between any of the alternatives. 

The selection of any of the alternatives would not affect current 

land uses or adversl y affect the local Tri 0--tv economy 

CQNCLUSION : The Geolog ic Di.P.A.1 Alternative has the highest 

Possibilit y for occupational "Postures and nonradiolo93eal. 

impacts Primaril y due to the lon ge, . im p lamentatlen of th,= 

alternative. In all other _ r - imPocts there is little 

sisnificant difference bet ... n any2of the alternatives with 

little to recommend one alternative over another. 

The second ste p in the analal y is of the atternati ie tl3 s p asal +e•ho+s 

5 t0 determine the PCSidysP OSaI :np aCC3 (Long term impacts up t0 

:0,000 veers). 

Chemicals are intertwined With r.di.activ. wastes and ...Id be 

I ... h.d from tank wastes into drinkin g water a d emend water but 

would not be adversl y effect.d off a it,. - 

active 

iT•stitutione.l control, Projected environmental im p acts are small with 

little to recommend one alternative over another with res p ect to 

.long-term im p acts on Public health ana safety. 

Leached rI.stes due to infiltrated?reca p itat:on, oven with double the 

Pre."" avera ge annual p reci p itation

51 0 

13 19 

DO 

W 

F-' 

3.3.3.1 

Th9 Overall cast of the NO Dis p osal Alternative at first. aPPear to be 

the lowest, - $1.8 billio n, brit continued costs of 21.3 billion Per 

century could a" , make it the most CXPeneive. The geologic 

di.Pes.l Alternative, totaling .Colt ill billion, is four times more 

exPensive than either of the other two alternatives. 

CONCLUSION' S Although the Geolo g ic DiePOSal alternative removes 

9S o' the redicactivitw and shows the lowest lon g term 

releases to the ...iroment, the i ..... Ad short terra 

OP ... tional exPo.,,. to workers and the Public, and the vast 

increased costs not iustifiable On the Laiis oe increased 

1 abl:c sale 

With continued nsite mana gement and Monitorin g the No 

DisPOSal alternative would be accePtable in terms of safety 

but long term costs could becona Prohibitive. The No D`P.sal 

alt mail'. would no', sotvs the dis p osal Problem, but would 

simPlu PostPOne dealin g With Permanent waste disPOSa.I to 

future 9enerat ions. This alternative is essentiall y the 

continuation of Presenim aste mana gement Pre.ct.ces and L 

therPOrp 'not. iccsltabte. 

The i .is,.e Stabilization Alternative ..Its For 

immobilization and stabalization of Waste and relies on a 

Protective barrier and marker. S y stem. In view of the limited 

geolo g ic ilotection p rovided for t tlan•?erous 

* es thin alternative would be u, ... C.Pt.ble in 

terms of Public safet y . With onl y a sli ght additi ... I cost, 

Increased Public SAFet y can be achieved thru gvolJ9ic 

isolation. 

Finall y the a r e Alternative stt3 in tow releases and 

heat 

health and a reasonable cost consistent With the Public 

health and safety . Most important 

l y this 

d mandates 

all new and .edits retrievaib e deiense wastes G. b edi sa eyed 

of LLtlli2in g 6e... J'f iC êP JSlter y laOldti on, 

RECOMENDATION' I ... C ... d that the Preferred alternative 

Chosen for the di.POSal of Hanford defense Waste be the 

Reverence Alternative. 

Sp eci ficall y the following mana gement elements should be utilized to 

.veal with defense wastes: 

Es1'stin9 Tank Waste: 

Sing le cell tanks - Th. old., sinSt a-wa It tanks contain waste that 

would re quire sPeoiallzed, costl y , a.nd Potentiall y hazardous recovery 

operations. Diffic'Jlt retrieval and lower radioactivit y su gg est that 

sending it to A dee p rep ository after immobilization in g lass m a y not 

will be di.P ... d of In under ground cribs. The remainin g slurry 

containin g salts and radioactive mixtures are t reated and turned to 

grout then returvme to the tanks. Finall y the tanks are filled with 

gravel and sand to Prevent dome. collaPSe and the tanks are sealed. 

The Harrier & Marker $,stem is utilized to isolate Waste from 

external li q uids a'nd o os y stems. A CRSS sur .ilance in addition to 

ma:nua.l monitorin g far the tank tf.P, levels, and radioactivity , and 

surrounding soils should Continue to be used until all tanks are 

isolated. 

Double-shell tanks - Waste retriived b. h y draulic s - in9 is 

"Perated. The Nish-level 'mate is vitrified and placed in a 

geolog ic rePOSitorv. The low-level waste is concentrated by. 

evaPOration and converted to g rout and disPosetl on site. The Final 

dlsPOSition of the tanks would be similar to the . =-.rrg la wall tanks - 

filled with gravel and sand and sealed. The Barrier & Marker $,at.. 

is utilized to isolate waste from external li quids and ecosystems. 

Future t .nk wastes: 

Solids and li q uids would be sePerated With Cesium. bein g removed Fr.. 

the suPernataht. Ths .1,d ge and cesium is Processed in. the 

vitrification Plant and Placed in A 9"1091c re p ository . The liquid 

would be converted to grout and disPosetl on site. 

Strantiumnesium 

Low volume but contains 601. of all hi gh-loval defense waste 

radioactivit y . Current beneficial leasein9 for medical PurPOSes 

would continue. Cesium is extracted From li q uid waste bW ton 

exchange and converted to a solid. Continued Storag e in water Basins 

until 1935 then it wC,ld be and Packaged into canasters 

and Placed In geolog ic rePO4itOrv. 

Retreivabl. Stored & N..IW Created TRU Solid Waste! 

TRU 1is 10% of DW vat... but less than it: of radioactivity.- 

Remote handled TRU handled in i s p ecial Haste Receiving and 

Procaain9 Facilit9 and sent toWiPP. Contract-handletl Waste are 

sent to WIPP without re processin g . All waste

' 

_ j 

L 

.................. 

F^ 

Y 

0 

140 

CHET ORLOFF NEI;!:VE L) WEAL 

Portland. Oregon ?PZio 

JuL a 51986 

VIM DIVISION 

July. 15, 1986 

WASHINGTON STATE SENATE h 

SENATOR AL BAUER 

amp n.bct 

July 21. 1986 

Y 

RE,ti,,L) 1.8E-RL 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

- Operations office JUL 251966 

Waste Management Division 0 140 


WM DIVISION 

ATTENTION: R.A. Molten: 

Mr. R. ep Hotten/EIS 

O . . of Energy 

Ric 6 Rd erat 

hland Operations 

P. 0. Box 550 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Richland, NA. 99352 

This letter serves an my commentary on the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement on the disposal of defense waste at Hanford. 


I a n e nod that the Only opportunity for Public input on the 

m c c 

On behalf of Wfellow Oregonians, I Wish to add Own 

of defense waste disposal is 

my few words, 

during the 120-da y. comment 

the Environmental 2.3.2.7 

2.1.1 expressing strong resistance against the receipt and period on Imp to Statement. 

g g 

Storage of 

The problem with 

the Public-comment time frame e tes to the failure 

F, nuclear wastes, to the many and el Nvent words year have already 

of the 

impact statement to select an option for the disposal of defense 

waste. 

00 

Instead, the.-statement merely lists four alternative. for 

N 

disposal. The final impact statement, whieb rs scheduled for 

I full realize, have long studied the matter and being the 

releasezn the summer Or fall of 1987 , . will select 

an 

brother of a nuclear physicist, the problem the peparterent of 

option that 

excludes a public-comment nefear feel it is extremely Shortour 

nation face with the Problen of nuclear 

sighted to take comments e on four options but not take comments o on 

Energy and, Indeed , 

wastes. sre 

The issue. of a 

much great" than that with 

the final option seellecc ted e implementation. 

T you and your colleagues are facing and for which you must 

public should 

have the opportunity to ant on th e selected 

arrive at an answer. 

how 

a 

That issue being h we produce and conserve 

Proposal the 

Department of Ene rgy intends to put into effect. 

energy in this country. However, is all of us h face an intense 

regional problem and that is th no matter I wish to express nO' 

I am also concerned about the rotorrelationship 

belief 

between defense 

to you on. 

wane s disposal and the commercial repository Prog ram. It appears 

to that the two 

2.1.3 

s they arate 

Very simply. f rom most (I'll admit. not all) available 

re lat.d. 

le evidence -- 

However, the 

Department maintains a they ae are 

r ra 

thereby leaving 

from the federal 9 overnment. 

industry, Y ani public P insti- 

it to the 

public to decipher any pact decisions e program may have 

2 . 1 . 1 continue it is readily apparent to the objective s that o 

the other: I firmly e 

believe the Departnt me should address these 

continue to collect atti re nuclear wastes athe an the Ns on Reserve possible impacts in the Draft Statement. 

is folly. Noe rs than that, it is Criminal 

-- if not considered 

So now, it will certainly be held so by future generations. 

I do not believe Hanford is a suitable site for a high-level 

uclear waste repository 

I predict that should it be decided to build up, rather than curs drologic 

be cause of its geologic and hy 

ate o f Washi I 

rt e 

ref 

tail, Hanford'§ storage a the federal government 9 will 

zens of 

State of Washi ngton uoono this 

sensitive the 

r e. cr ti 

athe 

if 

have a crisis Of s o me,or all 

marjor of 

ositi p roportions its hands. I predict that 

the 

2. 

Hanford 11 . 

defense wastes are disposed 

the amount of opposition to increased ed storage a 

a repository, I 

will grw to 

would also oppose. disposal at their present site. 

rate and to a level that will alarm even the West dedicated 

t deer civil disobedience. oan nrd And I predict that should 

It be decideded to add Nif o storage capability, ct 

stances will soon. for ce ce. if not re;ui r 

re, a reversal of that 

decision. 

Bhet r d 

andomm.vxsrnm. Wcymm Meyn RWm pV.Lm o g 

tlmmes, YêB oaNg 

7o11MlzxvwWza 

PN mF. Wmf.IMm Gflidi V WaHtrpIM v. 

(aro))envaxi 

Oaa` 9U.Uzb

d 3 a. 

Hou 

MM 

NECE-0 !?OE-RL 

Holton JUL 251986 

July 21 

Page 2 

WM DIVISION 

RECEIVED DOE-RL Wm 

3. 

For the past three or four years I have been in d"Oustion with 

Rep. Dean Sutherland on this issue and share Rep. Sutherland's 

opinion that a Monitored Retr a ble Storage system is the 

Preferred option. 1 feel strongly that the people of the State 

of Washington should have the opportunity to comment on an.NRS 

system.. 

July 21 1986 

JUL291998 6141 nw 

WM DIVISION 

00 

W 

Please eater these coresents in your records. 

Respectfully, 

^ 

AL 

AL BAOER, 


AB:ma 

Michael J. Lawrence 

Manager 

Department of Energy 


PO Box 550 

Richland WA 99352 

Dear Mr. Lawrence: 

As a member of the Northwest Citizens Forum I herewith 

submit my observations on the Department of Energy's draft 

environmental impact statement concerning Hanford'. defense 

nuclear sate. Not being a scientist, I have refrained from 

trying to make any scientific criticism. and have instead 

confined myself to a layman'a views. 

As you will note in my report, I am very appreciative of the 

splendid cooperation of Jerry White and others of DOE who have 

baby-sat the Forum so patiently. On occasion they must have been 

driven close to frustration by the questions and comments of 

Forum members and public participants. But they kept their cool 

under the hottest fire. A DEC with oak leaf cluster would be 

appropriate. 

0 

0 

0 

C 

r+ 

J. 

nfD 

s 

C'P 

Sincerely, ^ i 

FI 

0- 

!/,//X/!//- /& 

RL COMMITMENT CONTROL 

JUL 2 4 1986 

RICHIAND OPERATIONS OFFICE

111 

W" 

N 

2.2.14 

2.2,3 


JUL 291986 6141 

@IM DIVISION 

1. RKHARD NOSES 14650 S.W. 103M AW. TIGARD, OREGON 97224 

citizens forum report 

From S. Richard Makes 

Member NN Citizens Forum on Defense Nuclear Haste DrsPOSAI 

To! Rev. Bernard Coughlin 

Chairman, Northwest Citizens Forum 

O.S. Department of Energy 

Subject: Personal critique, DOE DEIS Defense Nuclear Waste 

Disposal 

Because the Northwest Citizens Forum was invited to critique 

the DOE draft environmental impact statement on disposal of 

Hanford defense high- level, transuranic and tank wastes, and 

because DOE will issue ..bsaquent draft EIS on disposal of wastes 

from commercial reactors and on selection of a. site for permanent 

disposal of nuclear wastes, I confine my remarks to the draft 

environmental impact statement concerning methods of disposal of 

defense nuclear wastes. 

General Statement 

Defense nuclear waste has been ac cumulating at Hanford for 

more than 40 years, and while it has caused minimum hazard to 

the environment. Congress and the people generally agree a 

process should be started looking toward permanent safedisposal. 

Other nations, notably France, are ahead of the United States in 

selecting permanent disposal techniques. Even China, with ten 

reactors and two more being constructed, has begun• process 

to select a system of permanent disposition and has been in 

consultation with French engineers in Beijing on this subject. 

The challenge to the Northwest Citizens Forum has been to 

advance this process by analyzing and criticizing the draft 

environmental impact statement issued by DOE last April 1, and to 

insure that northwest residents generally have Dpportunt ty to do 

the Same. 

A major complication has been the timing of the announcement 

of the selection of three finalist locations for the first 

permanent site for a nuclear waste repository, one of the three 

being Hanford, Washington. This announcement came close on the 

heels of the first meetings of the Citizens Forum and has caused 

such an adverse Political and public reaction in Washington and 

Oregon that the DOE's statement an military nuclear waste has 

been almost completely obscured. Public hearings on the subject 

have on occasion developed into virtual public hangings of the 

DoE, focusing little on the specifics of the DEIS on military 

nuclear waste. This has been most unfortunate. 

In my view, any plan for disposition of the accumulated and 

I 

RCCC11fEL :f,-9L 

14 

JUL 2919860 

WM DIVISION 

future defense nuclear and chemical waste should focus entirely 

on public safety for generations to come. Financial cost should 

be secondary to environmental and health costs. Ten billion 

dollars in expenditure if it provides maximum long-term safety is 

preferable to a two billion dollar expenditure that might provide 

lesser assurance of long-term safety. When we are talking of 

10,000 years or more, ten billion dollars would be a small price. 

Specific Considerations 

Withxceptions, I agree with the Oregon position released 

by Gov. Vic Atiyeh and presented by David Stewart-Smith to the 

recent meeting of the Citizens Forum in Hanford, and with the 

draft consensus position of the alternatives sub-committee of the 

Forum at the same meeting. The two are compatible.. 

A. I agree that option 1 (vitrification and geologic 

dial, ... 1) in the DOE DEIS should be the preferred method of 

disposition. All high level waste(HLW) should be retrieved, 

glassified, packaged in stainless steel cases surrounded by 

concrete and permanently deposited in a deep repository wherever 

that may be. DOE estimates this would be 98 percent (by 

activity( of the waste. 

B. Transuranic waste should go to the waste isolation pilot 

plant in New Mexico. This includes pre- and post -1990 THU waste.. 

C. I am not convinced after reading the report, listening to 

testimony and observing on-site testing of engineered barriers 

that shallow burial will ever be feasible. All single shell tank 

waste, even though it is in cake or sludge form, should be 

retrieved and disposed of in deep geologic repositories. The DOB 

draft EIS indicate. is retrieval technology does ..t exist, so 

additional research should go forward as Oregon recommends. It 

Should be noted that Washington's draft statement (page 2-7, 

July, 1986( suggests a passible solution. Mike Lawrence in his 

statement to the forum via Father Coughlin duly 3 also suggests a 

possible method and mentions the final SIB will address the 

various possibilities of complete clearing of single-shell tanks. 

Lawrence. suggests that adding a sealant around and under the 

single-shell. .tanks is not feasible at present. 

In general, the barrier development program has not yet 

providedsurance that shallow burial would over the long 

term be a safe technique. Intrusion byma animal species,. 

plant noting and decay, and natural disasters such as 

earthquake and climatologic change over the thousands of years 

are dangers that come to mind. Markers on the site over such a 

long period could be obscured, removed or become incomprehensible 

to man in millenia to come. 

D. Strontium and cesium wastes double encapsulated in 

2 

2.2.3 

3.3.1.1 

3.1.3.25 

3.3.1.1 

3.3.5.3 

3.5.1:8 

3.5.1.7

13 

.4A 


3.1.2.5 

3.1.6.1 

2.2.9 

2..2.3 

DO 

(P 

2.3.2.8 

JUL 29 1986 

WM DIVISION 

stainless steel cylinders should continue to be stored in water 

basins until a repository is available after which they should be 

packaged and shipped to a future geologic repository. 

Two other Oregon suggestions should be heeded: 1--DDE should 

comply with federal and state requirements on chemical and lowlevel 

waste handling; 2. Congress should be requested to 

establish fundingperpetual basis for the disposal of 

military waste eitheṙ . 

ither in the Defense Department or Department of 

Energy budget. 

Summary 

While the in-place stabilization and disposal alternative 

and the reference alternative provide cheaper means of disposal 

of defense nuclear waste than the geologic disposal alternative, 

I am of the opinion that dollars don't count; safety does. Thus 

the geologic disposal alternative should be preferred. 

Additional comments: 

The specific criticism of the DEIS by 'Washington State 

should be answered forthrightly in the final EIS. 

The question raised by Robert Alvarez in May and discussed 

in variou letters since concerning criticism of the French 

vitrification technique shouldbe answered in the final EIS. 

While DOE has indicated in a communication of June 5 from R.D. 

Prosser to Alvarez that the complete packagin g of vitrified HLW 

would eliminate any danger of breakdown of glassified Haw, this 

does not appear to be the final word. 

DOE also should deal in the final EIS (as it did in 

communication received by Forum members) with questions raised by 

Washington State Senator Bailey concerning the capacity of the 

first repository for all the Hanford nuclear waste. 

I compliment Jerry White and all the other DOE staff .members 

who have met with the Citizens Forum and have patiently responded 

to all the questions,e of them quite barbed, from Forum 

members or the public. I sam afraid that on occasion DOE has been 

treated as public enemy no. l instead of as aresponsib le agency 

doing its best to solve a problem that huge. in wartime 43 years 

ago. 

This personal report is written prior to the August meeting 

of the Citizens Peru. in Seatt le. I reserve the right to amend 

it if subsequent information seems to require it. 

July 28, 1986 

Rich Holter/EIS 

U.5, Department of Energy k^w 

Richland Operations offrne JUL 30 1986 C)4'^ 

P.O. Sax 550 

Richland, Wash. 99352 

1NM9ggSION 

I received the announcement of your public hearing July 15, 1986 

"to provide testimony on alternatives for permanent disposal of 

defense wastes stored at Hanford". Unfortunatelymy meeting schedule 

did not allow time for attendance nor verbal testimony at the 

hearing. However, I am sending my comments for a serious review. 

1) The above statement in quotes excerpted from the 'concerned 

citizen' letter is flawed. It makes the Hanford site a foregone 

conclusion and in essence says it is the only method of disposal 

that is open for discussion. The Government selected the Hanford 

site before much was known about nbcia Ge waste, radiation and 

resultant damage to humans and the environment. Creation of jobs 

often times obscures the desire to investigate the side effects 

and, in this situation, it was true and still is, according to the 

reports I read from the resident s. of the Tri-city area. These 

are three factors. The fourth factor is the general apathy .which 

existed 45 years Age and still exists today. It sets the stage 

for powerful organizations like DOE to ride rough shad over everyone. 

It is my suspicion that someone or a group is p ro fitting 

by such actions.. Suspicions are directed to DOE personnel, the 

administration or private interests. 

2) If what I read in the paper, is only partly true, your organization 

is hardly one to be trusted with such a critical decision. 

The reports included DOE allowing the disposal of high radiation 

waste Jol la low radiation site. The scuttling and destruction of 

data that put Hanford at the top of the list rather than the 

bottom, is unforgiveable. Where has honor, trust, and ethic 

gone? DOE has massive jab to improve its public relations. 

And there I make the assumption it wants to. The fact that the 

letter states "defense wastes" (including hig h . and low radiation) 

is all inclusive and is a strategy too often used of using 

generic terms. 

3) The Governor of the State of Washington is proposing a ballot 

at the general election in the fall to get the citizen reaction. 

I fully support it. At this point I am not aware of what influence 

that will have when the decision is made, but it behooves 

all of us who will become more outspoken on environmental issues 

to speak out and convince the electorate to vote against nuclear 

waste storage to Washington State. A talk of secession might 

shock the other states that we do not intend to let the admini 

s tration have its way. 

2.5.5 

2.5.5 

2.1.1 

3.3.1.1 

J. Richard Nokes 

July 21 1986

Aa S £ € 

0 

144.! 143 

2 

RECSVV-aD f('[-RL 

JUL 3 O 1986 

4) Your beganization is part of what I term - the fourth govern- 6143 

ment. The federal, State and Local Governments of the people are DOE Richland Operations Offi ce VIM DIVISION 

8 July 1986 

the first three. The fourth is made up of bureaucrats who write 

t he .millions or pages of rules and regulations without inputfrom 

ATTN R.A. Holten/EIS 

2.5.5 the citizenry. It is this grand . that .puts itself above the ne ads Waste Management Divfiied 

p.l/3 

0f the people who pay their salaries. It is this group who is party Richland, WA 99352 

to deals made with self-interest groups. And it is this group 

that has created the situations of lack of trust. And we, as the 

apathetic electorate have had a major pa rt i making it 

happen - not knowing D how to stop the juggernaught. Iwith to raise the fo llowing concerns regarding the DOE's draft Environment al 

Impa ct Statement enti tl ed' Dispos al of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuramc. 

As you have already surmised, I am totally opposed to the Hanford and Tang Wastes: 

disposal site. The only r n 1 can-see that the world disposal 

site has to be in the United States, is that some persons be 

s i te at some be - 

future processing will recover more making 

1) THE DEPT. OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO 

2.1.1 

necessary to keep the potential out of the hands of others. 

MEET AT LEAST THE MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS REQUIRED OF COMMERCIAL. 

Otherwise, there are many wore desolate areas in the world 

REACTORS, BOTH FOR THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES ANDTHE DISPOSAL 

which would be more suitable 

OF NUCLEAR WASTES. Ibelieve it is the responsibi lity of the United States Federal 

I can only assure you that I will speak against the Hanford 

Government to protect its citizens from internal as we ll as external threats to their 

disposal site and will not .support the DOE. 

health and we ll being. I therefore cannot understand why the United Slates 

eY24 

Dep artment of Energy (DOE) co nsistently operates using lower standards of safety 

than are required by the feder al government for commerci al nucle ar reactors in 

y_,^` . 

this country: 

1 -' a) How d oe s the DOE justify operating the N-rea ctor sad other feder al rea ct ors 

on tic{; RL without containment domes, and with less rigorous safety standards than those set 

4735 35th Avenue N.E. by the Nucle ar Regulatory Commission(NRC)7 I do not accept the rationale that 

Seattle, WA 90105 JUL 30 T96E because May generally operate within the NEC guidelines it maces no differen ce 

cc Governor Booth Gardner 

VIM 01%is10N 

that their stand ar ds as more lax. Because the DOE has the technic al capabi li ty to 

- operate within the NRC guidelines.the DOE and DOD should be required by law 

meet at least the safety stand ar ds required of commercial reactors and commercial 

waste. 

2) ALL DEF EN SE WASTES SHOULD BE RETRIEVABLY STORED FOR AT LEAST 50 

YEARS, AND ALL DEF EN SE WASTES SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF BY DEEP GEOLOGIC 

BURIAL. This nation has decided that geologic dispos al by deep buri al. with was te s 

retrievably stored for at least 50 years. is the safest method for disposing of the 

spent commercial fuel The DOE should be requ ired to dispose of all its wastes in 

the same way. Theref or e, the DOE should not be a llowed to dispose of its wastes by 

In-pram stabilization. and subsequently options 2 (In-Place Stabilization) and 3 

(Reference)we unsuitable. - 

a) 1 urge the DOE =it least one independent agen cy in co nsider other options 

Our the safe retrieval of the pre-1970 defense wastes. so that it can be safely stared 

by deep geologic disposal at a site outside of Hanford, and retrievably sto red for at 

.. least 50 years bef or e buria l. There is no just ification far any other worse ex ce pt 

ca st and political expediency, which should not be factors on was te s which must be 

isola te d from human co nta ct far at least 10.000 years. 

2.2.7 

2.5.6 

3.3.4.2 

3.3.1.1 

3.3.2.1 

3.3.3.1 

3.3.5.3

is 

443 

143 

N 

W 

V 

3.5.5.28 

3.3.2.1 

RECEVEr COE-RL 

JUL 301966 

6 l}3 

IMM DIVISION 

V.2/3 

3) ARE RADIOACTIVE DAUGHTER ISOTOPES INCLUDED IN-TABLES I & 2? Tables 1 

&2 (p. 1.11 & 12) are d ifficult to understand. For instance, Americium-241 is a 

radioactive decay product of Plutonium-239-240, and yet it is not shown to 

increase. as Plutonium decays. Were radioactive decay products Computed into 

Table 2, or does it only depict Me initial quantities m radioactive isotopee? If not 

included already, please recompute to accurately reflect the total quantities of 

isotopes 

4) OPTIONS 2. & 3 ARE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL AND BOTH ARE UNACCEPTABLE. 

The reference option (option 3) is only a d ifferent name for onsite stabilization 

(option 2). If one looks at the numbers, it is clear from the reference (option 3) 

that the DOB plans to dispose of all pre-1970 waste (which is virtually all of the 

present defense waste) and even some of the post 1970 waste by 1n-p12ce 

stabilization (option 2): Most of the plutonium generated and extracted by the 

defense department was done between 1944 and 1972; No extraction was done 

between 1972 and 1983.: The reference option plans to stabilize in place all waste 

generated prior to 1970, and much of what has been generated since then (see p. 

11,24). Therefore, in option. 3. the bulk of the total defense waste would be 

stabilized in place, as outlined in option 2. Therefore. option 3 is effectively option 

2 as far as the present defense waste is Concerned. Both these options are 

inappropriate. 

RECElY20 DOE RL 

JUL 3006 

6,13.3 

v1MDIVISION 

P.3/3 

7) NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN UNTIL LESS HAZARDOUS TEUMIOtM ARE 

DEVELOPED FOR THE RETRIEVAL, PROCESSING, AND STORAGE OF THE PRE-1970 

DEFENSE WASTES. It is clear from the wording throughout the HIS that the DOB 

time not yet have techniques for the safe retrieval and disposal of the pre-1970 

defense wastes (see p. L8, 1.17 for examples). Therefore, no action should be 

taken until technologies can be developed for the safe retrieval, processing and 

storage of this wastes. It is unconscionable to literally sweep this waste under a 

rug of concrete and leave future generations with the task of cleaning itupshould 

the DOE 's predictions of environmental impact prove in the future to be too 

optimistic 

Sincerely, 

cey 

Paul 

224 N. Bellevue. Ave. 


3.3.5.4 

3.5.5.14 

3) WHY ARE THERE NO CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR ESTIMATES? One cannot 

foresee even the near future with 100% Certainty,. and predicting events 10,000 

years into the future is even more difficult. Why then do the EIS tables lack 

confidence intervals omthe estimates? For instance. on p. xii of Vol. I it is stated 

that' Downstream users of the Columbia River would incur at most one health effect 

associated with the dis posal of waste over the 10,000 yens. This is only me 

example of the consistent lards of confidence intervals for estimates. It is 

impossible to evaluate the data presented without some idea of the uncertainties 

involved. 95% certainty levels should be presented for all tables representing 

estimates. What are the uncertainties involved in your health Im pact estimates? 

How we re these determined? 

2.3.2.5 

2.3.2.9 

6) AN INDEPENDENT STUDY AND INDEPENDENT EIS IS IMPERATIVE BEFORE ANY 

DECISIONS BE MADE CONCERNING NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL. It violates standard 

scientific practices to have the agency responsible for the generation of the nuclear 

Waste also responsible. for evaluating the health and environmental impacts of 

nuclear waste generation and storage. It is Impossible to evaluate the ectenti in 

data presented without independent input and review. It is imperative that an 

independent agency be charged with data collection, analysis, outline of options 

and production of the EIS.

144 144 

RECEIVED X&RC 

JUL 30 1986 _:14 

s-s 

00 

Co 

2.3.2.9 

2.5.5 

2.2.13 

2.5.5 

DOB Richland Operations Office p.l/e 6 July 1986 

ATTN R.A. HOhen/BIS 

Waste Management Div ision 

RECEI;Ltd ^rc.(.,^ 


JUL 301986 

WM DfsGiON 

lam writing to express my opinion concerning the DOE 'a draft Environment al 

Impa ct Statement entitled' Dispos al of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic, 

and Tank Wastes (EIS), and wish to raise the fo llow ing points: 

1) AN INDEPENDENT STUDY AND EIS IS NECESSARY. 1 ca nn ot accept any data, 

probabilities, or co nclusions presented in the EIS. since the HIS is researched and 

written by the same dep ar tment which has generated, stored, and must now t ry to 

clean up and dispose of the was tes. 1 be li eve that no action should be taken on 

disposal of defense nu cle ar wastes until an INDEPENDENT agen cy can both examine 

the origin al data, critique the DOE 'a EIS, explore other retriev al and dispos al options 

and make re co mmendations as to how the defense waste should be retrieved and 

disposed. 

a) This nation was bu ilt on the ide al of sep ar ation of powers: sep ar ation of church 

and stale, and sep aration Of judi cial, legislative, and executive bodies of 

government. How then can this same na tion set one department; the DOE, with the 

task of generating, monitoring, storing, and ultimately disposing of its own 

hazardous materials? This is clearly a co nfli ct of interest. No matter how noble the 

purpose and how strong the des ire far obje ct ivity, it would be asking the 

impossible of any individu al or organiza tion to remain neutral and obje ct ive an an 

facets of this issue. I therefore co nsider it imperative that an independent agen cy 

be set up to monitor past, present, and future generation and storage of defense 

wastes and to determine how best to retriove and dispose of the defense wastes 

a lr eady generated. 

b) I know that the siting of the co mmercial waste repository is beyond the amps 

of the defense waste EIS, but 1. believe it is nevertheless relevant to point to the 

DOB's Violation or its own guide lines in elevating Hanford from 5th of 5 si tes to 3rd 

of the three si te s chosen for further ch ar acterization. The DOE has lost a ll 

cr edib ility as am objective p ar ty by placing its dep ar tmental canceras above the 

health and s afety of the Am er ican people. This agency cannot be treated W 

present options which accursmly refle ct the re al health and environment al impa ct s 

Involved. 

vN DIVISION pZH 

2) ALL DEFENSE WASTE SHOULD BE RETRIEVABLY STORED FOR AT LEAST 50 

YEARS AND THEN DISPOSED OF BY DEEP GEOLOGIC BURIAL. This nation has decided 

that geologic dispos al by deep burial is the safest method for disposing of the spent 

commercial fuel. and that wastes should be atoned retrievably for at least 50 years. 

The DOE should be required to dispose of its wastes in the same way. Therefore. 

the DOE should not be allowed to dispose of its wastes by In-place stabilization. and 

co nsequent ly op tions 2 (In-Platt Stabilization) and 3 (Reference) are unsuitable. 

Furthermore, retrievable storage far aU wastes for at least 50 years should be 

mandatory 

It is the duty of government to prote ct its citizens from external as we ll as 

internal hum. Why d oe s the DOE continue to operate its reactors and propose 

disposing of its nuclear waste less stringent stand ar ds of safety than those requ ir ed 

by the gove rn ment of co mmercial reactors? The DOE should be required to meet 

stand ar ds at least as rigorous as those requ ired by the government for commercial 

reactors! This imperative app li es to the operation of the defense reactors. 

including We N-Reacto r. the operation of the PURE plant, and the processing, 

storage, retriev al and disposal of all defense nucle ar was te s. 

3) ALL DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM HANFORD TO A 

GEOLOGICALLY SAFE DEEP REPOSITORY. The Nation al Academy of Sciences 

re co mmended the DOE change its selec tion criieria, such that Hanford should have 

been dropped from the Est of characterized sites for mm mercial waste storage. 

Defense wastes are more unstable than co mmerical wastes. These wastes therefore 

must not be stored at Hanford, and should be shipped away from Hanford for 

disposal. The location should be chosen on the basis of ge ologic safety, not po li tical 

expediency. The DOE has a lr eady co mpromised the si ti ng of the commeraal waste 

repository. It should not be a llow ed to do the same for the defense wanes. 

a) .Why did the DOE violate its own site-sele ction guidelines in order to have the 

Hanford si te chosen far characterization when other, safer si te s were ava il able? I 

am curious to kn ow the justification for this position since it has compromised the 

safety stand ar d for site selection. Because the defense waste may be pla ce d in the 

co mmercial repository, it is Pertinent to the defense EIS W demand that the DOE 

justify its decision to choose Hanford f ar site chara cter ization. even though it 

ranked last on the fist using the DO E's own si te sele ct ion criteria 

3.3.4.2 

3.3.1.1 

3.3.2.1 

2.2.7 

3.3.1.1 

2.1.1 

2,2.14

fi e T 

i 8 # ^'^ ^ 

I^ 

5 a x 

?'2. eaa Syc. 

2€ '! , 

144 144 

to 

3.4.2.2 

2. 1 . 1 

RECOV-f,, DOF F 

JUL301986 

P3 14 

WM DIVISION 

b) P. 1.8 states that 'sending most of the Hanford wastes M a deep reposito ry after 

they have been Immobilized in glass may not be justified when risk and co st me 

weighed against benefits. If it is not worth the risk to transport wastes from 

Hanford somewhere else, then why is it worth the even greater risk (greater sin ce 

more waste (see p. 1.7), and greater distan ce s are involved) to transport 

co mmercial waste from the East Coast to Hanford? Surely the granite sites on the 

East co ast, the Nevada Tuff, the Texas Salt, and the rocks at whatever site should 

have been chosen instead of Hanford for further characterization, would be at least 

as safe as the water-saturated Hanford Basalts!1!!! This is cle ar ly a double 

standard. 

Therefore, the co mmercial repository should not be l oc ated at Ha nf ord, and a ll 

defense wastes should be removed from Hanford to a geologica ll y safe deep 

repository . 

4) NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN UNTIL SAFE TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE RETRIEVAL, 

PROCESSING, AND RETRIEVABLE STORAGE OF THE PRE-1970 DEFENSE WASTE ARE 

3.3.5.4 DEVELOPED. The defense department cr eated this waste, and should be held 

responsible for disposing of ALL its wastes in the same manner as that required of 

co mmercial nuclear reac 

to rs. It is cle 

ar that the DOE d 

oe s not yet have the 

expertise to do this safely (see p. 1.8 & 1 1 7). 

3.3.4.2 

2.2.13 

Therefore, no action should be taken on the long-term disposal of the defense 

wastes untH technologies can be developed to retrieve and package the pre-1970 

waste in manner suitable for deep geologic disposal, and should be retrievably 

stored for at least 50 years. 

Furthermore, studies should be undertaken by independent agencies to 

determine the most suitable retrieva l . and disposal options. 

5) HANFORD IS AN INAPPROPRIATE SITE FOR STORAGE OF BOTH DEFENSE AND 

COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR WASTE. Because plutonium is currently a waste product Of 

the commercial industry and the desired end product of the defense department, 

2. 21.3 . 

fuel should under no c ircumstan ce s be stored at defense facility. 

THEREFORE, HANFORD SHOULD BE REMOV ED FROM CONSIDERATION AS A 

REPOSITORY SITE FOR SPENT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR FUEL] To store the 

commercial waste at Hanford is yet another violation of the sep ar ation of powers 

on which this nation prides itse lf. It also violates our 40-ye ar po li cy of sep ar ating 

the pea ce ful and destructive uses of the atom and is an open invitation to other 

nations to make weapons out of their com merei al fuel 

RECEIVED COE.R' 

JUL 301986 6;44 

p4/4 

MP, 

No government wi ll believe we do not use span[ commercial fuel IM wet K! ea s !VISION 

when this rich plutonium resour ce is located in the middle of a defense fa ci lity, 

even H it is not used for this purpose! There me sufficient non-defense sites 

available in this nation that there is no need to l oc ate co mmercial waste at a 2.1.3 

defense faci lity which is repro ce ssing spent fuel for warheads (unless the 

government intends M do so). The fact that the DOE elevated Hanf or d from a low 

position on the fist of available si te s, passing over more suitable sites based on 

safety, supports the notion that Hanford Is being chosen as a co mmerci al 

plutonium-extraction site (either for bombs of breeder fuel) rather than a 

co mmercial waste storage si ls. 

What assurance can the DOE give the American citizens and the rest of the world 

that spent co mmercial fuel wi ll not be processed into plu to nium for warheads H the 

co mmercial waste is stored al Hadwd? I real ize that there is currently legisl ation . . 

2 1 3 

to prevent this, but congress co uld change the legisla tion, and even H it does not, 

the DOE co uld place a blanket of National Security' over the site and repr oc ess the 

spent co mmercial fuel without permission. How can this be prevented if the 

co mmer cial waste Is located on defense site? 

I know the DOE would li ke to ar gue that this issue is not relevant to the defense 

waste EIS, but f believe the two issues Me inseparable. By setting the precedent of 

'M-place stabil ization for the defense was te , the DOE Is paving the way to extra ct 3.3.2.1 

Plutonium from the spent commer cial. fuel at Hanford, thereby turning the more 

easily disposed of co mmercial waste into the same high-volume liquid, sludge, and 

solid waste that the defense dep ar tment ca nn ot yet dispose of safety. If it can 

2.1.3 

weep 40 year's a cc umulation of defense waste under a rug, as options 2 IS 3 

intend to do, it can lust as easily sweep all the co mmercial waste under the same 

rug after it has been reprocessed to remove the plutonium and uranium, whether 

for w ar heads or breeder fuel 

--It is therefore imperative that co mmer cial nucle ar waste not be stored at 

Hanford, and that defense waste be subject to the same disposal practices as are 

currently required for spent co mmer cial fuel. 

Sincerely. 

C. S.'tp ,yam' 

CS: Weller 

224 N. Be llevue Ave. 

Walla W alla, WA 99362.

g0 55 

I 

145 

JUL 301986 145 

. _ W&P 

Y=pp 

`-^:• ^ 

. nn•iS10N 

f^coil GL .Fw '^ .ffiht ,CC z ^4-c,-cA-/^Z^L, ^3

3%_ 3 

—ie 

v^ F f ,lo1075-94 

#,1 

1` 5 

146 

Friday-July 11th. 

JUL 30 19BG 

olk{+ 

WMOIVISION 

N 

It wss midnight last night befo re the last of the public speakera ag ai n st the 

use of Nenford as the waste lem, of the nation were finis he d talking. Wes 

could sleep after that? You are darned right-wa are all co nc erned and feel as 

Hhagh this is going to be forced dosn out throats; like a mother robin feeding 

bar thick.. Well, this little "chick" is a anther of feet healthy kids: and 

yen have s ee n no anger or force [then that of a mother proteetirg bar oanl 

In this case, I look upon these beautiful states of o ut s, as my shell I en 

going on record as saying that " WE "'T WANT NDCL'AR WASTE ANYwI Ill" AMi 

w iDgg AS ISA1.4 DON'T WANE IT I DRF1uN1I We can't seen to make it clear that 

we don't went this poison being made. None of us are infallible. But vA n I 

make a mistake In making dinner; w throw if cut and go ant to dinner. What 

happens if you make a mistake? And cad knee YOU make mistakes I I m yah throw 

it out and go out to direct? Seers like that ba the case. .Thaw it in tie 

grand, the sky, or the mean, then go have dice[. It's forgotten. For You it's 

forgotten, but the rest of us pay and pay mid pay. Iet's see: we pay for the 

spillage, the clean up, the disposal; for making the darned stuff in the begirming. 

Wt that's just the monetary side of it. I am wrtled about paying in the 

ecology . side of it. I love this s ce ne. I love clean water. I lave to fish in 

clean water, I like to eat bealthy ' fish item clean water. I like to drink clean 

water, from my can well. 

N mome educated idiot wants to put waste near the Colmbial I Can you guarantee 

that there will ;.ever he an accident? No Y. can't. Y. can't even guarantee 

that ytu'll even h e axamd if it happens. I don't want to see this poison being_ 

dunped any where in the wrldl gut se the last speaker said last night;"a good 

place for this s tu ff world be in Washington D.C." I think that my of you that 

w an t it shmad have to have it. Put it in your backyard: or your 

yaed might be better as far as you me be concerned. Aftarall, If you pu sh 

it off as re someare else the probl em isn't really yours, is it? 

It's no secret that cur can government uses us in rests-aECer the fact-thaglt° 

it may be. Look at Icse C anal. They Wn?`+ Aeat was happeni ng but [Laugh[ if 

they kept Quiet it Wald go away. Poison is poi son she rot taW g about it or 

admitting a probl em is there was like a placebo for the geatrammt. We won't 

toll wet and play dead just bmause th e gbeemeamet-says so. Viet Nam should 

base told them that. Rae p eo ple w il l have the beet say. 

2.1.1 

3.3.1.1 

2.5.5

i.d l yon' 

2 

146 =14'7 

. 

RECEDtCD OO&RL CITY OF YAKIMA JUL '311966 

pert 

JUL3006 Clô 

YiM UV1610N 

6141 

I an just a mtln;; I an rot a pzovdcisC; an ob]acfnz by 

9 

or 

1$lol e^T 

¢&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 

.mad. W bring hex Children up to-aAUthnod. I sla0 have a good sanme of terror; 

2.5.6 but I haven't used it math this day. I cas ct tell you how scared I - that 

we hove the unclear problem anyway. If ywdon't mnke it you dan't Fame to get 

rid of it. 

Don't try to but it in Washington, just under Box rose.. I don't kmw bow the 

rest of the states are as I Fame lived En the Numbers, states all my life; but .July 30, 1986 

I do taw that No want sib still fox dual! 

Ibis had d ar e probably nothing as far as D.O.E. id Concerned; The only thirlg Rich Holten/EIS - 

it has dome for ve is reea lse som e of the tension I have felt today. But I an 

2 . 3. 2. 8 

N 

H.S. Department of EOffi 

Richland Otmen tro Office 

strong am I'll home more strength far the fight if it cores to one; on beat P. o. Box 550 


the to 1. waste problem in this ommtzy. - 

Dear Mr. Bolted: 

A cc[ mnmd cltixa and scared. Mom, 

/ Enclosed with this letter are y comments on the March, 1956. U.S. 

Department Dies of Energy's 

E nee to D. Intact Statement 

Oia 1 Of Sanford D £soon Draft 

XBEaa// o iN ,^" 

H h L el T nod Tank 

x121 

Wastes (DOE EI 011 ). A copy of these comments will be included 

Hin e. Ore. 97738 

is the report submitted by the Northeast Citizen's Forum as 

Defense Waste. 

I appreciate the opportunity to comnent, on the DEIS and look 

forward to continued participation in this important process. 

Please address any response to my residence: 

916 So. 17th Avenue 


Sincerely yours, 

_ 

Clarence Barnett 

Assistant 

Member, N orthwe 

Mmbr, e Nrthwest Citizen's Porum - 

.. on Defense waste'

147 147 

3.3:5,5 

RECEPr--D rJOE-RL 

COMMENTS OF CLARENCE BARNETT AL 31 1986 6141 

ON ND - - 0113 ) 30 afi l 

WM DIVISION 

TIMING OF DEFENSE GEOLOG IC DISPOSAL ACTI O N S A N D OPE RATI ONAL 

DLATE FOR REPOSITORY; 

1. There are several statements In the DEIS that Indicate defense waste 

will be processed and ready for geologic disposal before the operational 

date of the repository. 

REGEftR:u -;CE.RL 

AL 31 1986 

HYDROLOGIC AND GEOCHEMICAL MODELS 

6(47 

VIM DIVISION a 

The enfrent status of hydrologic and geachemical models used to simulate 

subsurface contaminate migration necessitates making certain assumptions due 

to technical and data limitations.Calibration of computer models to actual 

field data is an issue to be closed prior to making a final disposal decision. 

Statements made in the DEIS (rather than a technical analysis) leaves reasonable 

is as to the adequacy of some of the preliminary analyses at this 

time. Testimony indicates that there are several interpretations as to the 

adequacy of the models used in the preliminary analyses. 

3.5.2.6 

I- 

-10 

Cl) 

3.3.5.5 

A. "The meltan glass product is transferred Into canisters that will 

he temporarilystored at the TIWVP site. The waste canisters will 

be transferred from the HVWP to a geologic repository when such 

repository can receive these defense HLW and TRU waste forms." 

(Vol. 2, Section CA, Page C.2) 

This raises the question as to whether there is need for interim 

storage. The HDW-DEIS does not Include the anticipated inventory 

or environmental impacts resulting from this temporary storage. 

B. The DOE time line for the commencement of operations for the first 

repository is 1990. However, the DEIS. states that strontium and 

cesium capsules are to be stored In the Waste Encapsulation and 

Storage Facility until t995 and then removed for geologic disposal. 

(Vol. 1, Section 3.3.1.3 and Vol. 2, Section H.3.3) The NOW time 

line does not appear to be compatible with the beginning operational 

date for a rompository. 

C. An additional consideration that may affect the HOW time line for 

geologic disposal is whether the development of a Monitored Retrievable 

Storage Facility will beused to extend the beginning 

operational date for the repository. 

The final EIS should Include contingency approaches that would be 

pursued in the event that a repository has not commenced Operations 

or the role of an MRS facility for Hanford defense waste. 

2. Several ambiguities for acceptance of defense waste in a geologic repository 

are found In USDOE "Retard of Responses to Public Comments on 

the Draft Mission Plan for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Program", June. 1985. (DOEIRW-0005) 

A. The schedule for the acceptance of defense waste is not tied to 

the 1998 date. (Vol. 2, Page 98) 

B. Commercial waste will be the first waste emplaced in the first 

phase of the first repository. (Vol. 2, Page 1831 

This is an area of major concern. It is recognized that additional research 

and peer review will be required before a consensus can be obtained. 

WASTE PACKAGES FOR GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL 

Waste package conceptual designs for geologic disposal have been developed 

and prototype testing is in process. 

The final EIS should include a statement as to whether the final waste 

package design will need to be site-specific depending on the yerehemical. 

(and other) conditions of the selected repository. - 

REDUCTION OF WASTE INTO SOIL 

DOE Order 5820.2 establishes the policy of eliminating ground disposal of 

radioactive waste and chemical waste Into the soil. DOE plans a separate 

study on this policy. 

The final EIS should include the scope and anticipated . time frame to implement 

DOE Order 5820.2. 

PACKAGING STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEFENSE WASTE 

The DOE has the authority to design and certify its awn packaging to be 

used by government shippers. (Vol. 1, Page 1.51 Type B packaging design 

must be certified by either the DOE or NBC. (Vol. 2, Page 1.2) 

This raises the question as to whether there is different criteria used by the 

DOE and the NBC for design certification of packagings. 

The final EIS should clarify that packagings certified by the DOE must meet 

the NBC packaging standards. 

3.1.8.16 

2.4.1.19 

3.4.2.12 

3.4.2.13 

The final EIS should include a time line for the processing of HOW for 

..geologic disposal In relation to the acceptance schedule in the geologic. 

repository. 

CMIII A Fege 1 of 9 CMIII A Page 2 of 9

",T 

14 17 14'7 

The decision et commingle commercial and defense wastes in the same repoai- 

2.1• 3 tor, has raised public concern as W the Impacts of defense waste to the 

civilian repository program.. 

3.1.6. 1 


RECEIV@D DOE-.°.L 

JUL 31 1986 

0147 JUL311986 6147 

CLARIFICATION IN VOLUME 3. PAGE E.6, RH-TRU Y/M DIVISION PROTECTIVE BARRIER 

i-al reVISION ffive 

The first sentence In Volume 3. Page reads: w TRU waste is The successful performance of a pp barrier to cover large volumes of 

aam pe ed be toprocessed and stored wfih RH-TRW waste from the tleca waste is a earth consideration applicable 

to all dl alternatives. The 

en and dtammissioTg h 

es ili go to (Underscore added) This 

earthen cover design was chosen for the DEIS a5 a preliminary 

sentence implies that RH-TRU doe s not go W the WIPP before the dec 

evaluation of . protective barrier to stop water Infiltration Is -a. into waste 

missioning of facilities. 

(Appendix MC Engineered barrier effectiveness is one the issues t 

must be closed DOE. will conduct a research and demonstration nstra[lon 

pr 

project 

The final EIS should clarify that RH-TRU Is sans to WIPP if that alternative focused an barrier performance. 

IS selected. 

Representatives from the Washington State Nuclear Waste .Board appeared 

before the Forum and raised a number of Issues on the preliminary analysis 

MANAGEMENT PLANS 

of the pr.tactIv, barrier (Appendix M). On July 17, 1986, the Board issued 

Its draft "Interim Reports an Policy and Technical Issues" of the HDW-DEIS. 

The DEIS frequently Incorporates within the text a future activity or study Technical laws 1, "Performance of Engineered Barriers and Shallow-Barrier 

such as under the Hanford Defense Waste Management Technology Program or Sites" alleges "there is a systematic misuse of references, which requires a 

the Hanrd fo Waste Management Plan. 

complete reevaluation of all assertions made regarding anticipated high perfermance 

of the barriers. (Refer to the Board's document for the complete 

When these programs/plans are Incorporated into the text, the final EIS text). The Washington. State Department of Ecology, Office of High-Level 

should be more specifik and expand an the "cape and degree of confidence Nuclear Management, Preliminary Draft Technical Review of the HDW-DEIS 

placed an the activity. _ (prepared by URS Corporation) has detailed comments an Appendix M. 

4.2 18 

with waste 

4.1 s 1 3 

COMMINGLING OF COMMERCIAL AND DEFENSE WASTES 

The final EIS should include an appropriate statement that once a repository 

Is chosen, DOE will be required to write an EIS for the repository that will 

Include defense waste impacts. Including. monitoring. 

MIXED HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL/RADIOACTIVE WASTE 

TheImpact of mixed hazardou hemlcal/recite ive wastes is not induced in 

the EIS. The disposal of mixed waste material is of spatial interest due to 

the uncertainties associated with these waste farm. at this time. Testimony 

before the Forum indicated that DOE is just getting started on the mixed 

waste issue and that these wastes may Present significant problems. 

Further, the DEIS wording in Section 6.6 (Volume 11 Resource Conservation 

and Recery ar Act (RCRA) Is not eoneudve W public confidence. 

The final EIS should include a statement of commitment that disposal of mixed 

wastes will a mpty with State, and Federal standards in force at the time 

these wastes are disposed. Further, the commitment should apply W all 

hazardous waste. 

The issues raised by the Washington State Nuclear Waste Board on the DOE 

preliminary analysis of the performance of the protective barrier should he 

considered and evaluated before issuance of the final EIS. 

LOW-LEVEL WASTE 

The disposal of low-level defense waste is excluded from the DEIS.. The 

main purpose of the EIS is to focus on high-level waste as recommended by 

the National Research Council. LLW and the resultant impacts were addressed 

in ERDA-1538. Although DOE believes. that the environmental impacts 

of LLW are small and past, no significant jeopardy to the environment, 

DOE has initiated astudy to determine whether any additional solo. should 

be taken; the adequacy of ERDA-1538 with respect to LLW impacts are being 

reconsidered. 

The fragmentation of LLW and KLW makes it difficult W ascertain the total 

defense waste disposal program. The final EIS should include in summary 

form: 1) the main points in ERDA-1536 applicable to LLW; 31 an Inventory 

of these wastes; and 3) the options available that will be taken should the 

study determine that additional action must b, taken. 

ANNOUNCEMENT TO POSTPONE WORK FOR ASECOND REPOSITORY 

The DOE announcement (May 36, 19861 to postponeIndefinitely site-specific 

work for a second repository has heightened publ ic concerns on disposal of 

commercial and defense waste W an extent that has seriously overshadowed 

discussion limited W the HDW-DEIS. Many either. now want assurances with 

specific information that demonstrates whether a single repository has the 

capacity W receive both commercial and defense waste, including a separate 

_trreakout showing Hanford's defense waste contribution.. 

CMIII A Page 3 of 9 CMIII A Page 4 of 9 

3.5.1.1 

3.5.1.56 

3.5.1.3 

2.3.1.13 

3.3.5.7 

2.1.8

M 

11/7 '14'7 

.,ÊccnAIZ23 ÔE-RL 

out. 611966 

6147 

N1M OfrISION 

DOE should give serious consideration to Include th is Information in the final 

515. 

ERROR IN TABLE H.13, WASTE PROCESSING STEPS FOR THE REFERENCE 

uuL 61 1986 014' 

rm 

Sinu the sites are ḃVing-MZW" ln[o to determine whether additional anvironmental 

protection Is needed, it Is proper in the Interest of long-term 

safety to include in the final EIS that disposal decisions will be made on 

.site-by-site basis, and sites found to be too hazardous (even with the adeltional. 

protection) will be retrieved and processed for geologic disposal. 

3.1.3.26 

N 

LD 

(I3 

4.2.55 

3.1.4.1 

2.4.1.7 

Table H.13, Waste Processing Steps for the Reference Alternative (Vol. 2, 

Page H.24) in the second block under existing Tank Waste should read that 

the high-level (rather than low-level . of existing tank waste is immobilized 

as glass. 

SINGLE-SHELL TANK WASTE 

1. Testimony against in-place stabilization of single-shell tank waste covers 

a broad spectrum ranging from being premature to selection would 

result in an irrevocable decision, In-place stabilization of these wastes 

Is an area of uncertainty and there is need for focused research. DOE 

indicated that the intention for in-place stabilisation a single-shell tank 

baste Is to make disposal decisions on a'tank-by-tank basis and that 

waste found to be too hazardous Ibr In-place stabilization will he procowed 

for geolog ic disposal 

This should be d ev eloped and inc luded In the final EIS. 

2. The NRC has proposed that 3000 NCI/gm would identify material that 

.qualifies as high-level waste. This standard would apply to same 

single-shell tanks. 

The final EIS should include the impacts of this proposed change In 

standards and its effect on the in-place stabilization alternative. 

3. The final EIS should Include a statement that high-level wastes mabllized 

in-place for single-shell tanks will meet the regulatory requirements 

of a repository. 

REFERENCE VOL. 1, SECTION 3.3,5, PAGE 3.33, PARA GRAP H CAPTIO NED 

The ..to. that reads as follows Is net clear as to Its relationship to usher 

sections in the DEIS: "That does not foreclose the option, after the completion 

of the tank characterization program, of developing. strategy of 

rZool certain hi h-activit tanks and leaving the rest.-- (Underscore 

a e fher sections o t e IS discuss removal of the high-activity 

contents from these tanks and not the removal of the tanks. This paragraph 

-Tres raqu clarification In the final EIS. 

REVISION OF RADIATION STANDARDS 

The DOE Is in the process of revising Its radiation standards in the vicinity 

of DOE fadlitles (Vol. 1, Page 4.1 and Vo l. 1. Page 6.1. Footnote "a'7. 

Pending development of a revised order, concentration guides presented in 

the current order (DOE 1981) are used In the DEIS. In response to my 

Inquiry on the effect of these revisions, DOE responded:"The overall 

radiation standards (radiation dose to people) will In effect be lowered. 

Changing methods of relating . co ncen tr ations of nucleon, to dose equivalent 

tram those of ICRP3 to ICRP26 1 30 are expected to result in permissible 

derived air concentrations for a. few muddles : that are larger than previously 

.:ad. 11 

This additional information should be Included in the final EIS and crossreferenced 

to Vol. 2, Pag e . xxxix on the planned adaptation of the HOW 

models to use the .newer dosimotric data. 

3.1.4.33 

3.5.5.5 

3.1.3.26 

e. Testimony Indicated the need to focus research on other alternatives for 

single-.h.11 tank waste. In view of the public on disposal of 

these wastes, the Final EIS should Include the scope of research that 

will be considered prior to making a final disposal decision. 

TRU-CONTAMINATED SOIL SITES AND PRE-19 70 TRU BURIED SOLID 

TRU-contaminated soil sites and pre-1979 TRU buried solid waste sites have 

been previously closed but are being reviewed to determine whether further 

action is warrantor in terns of environmental protection (Vol. 1, Page 3.9). 

These wastes contain $40 kilograms of plutonium.. The reference alternative 

does not call for retrieval and processing of the soil sites nor most of the 

buried s ol id waste. 

PARAMETER VALUES . FOR STRONTIUM FLOURIDE 

The DEIS states that additional research is needed to determine more realistic 

values for strontium flouride. IVOI. 2, Pages 1.20 and 1.33) In answer 

to my Inquiry on the time frame for resolution of parameter values,. the. DOE 

response was that they have learned that strontium flourlds Is In different 

form than that u se d In the DEIS making the accident risk estimates in the 

DEIS. significantly overstated. "As a result, more reasonable estimates are 

that It of the strontium flouride Is in the farm of dispersible particles and 

Sit the dispersible fraction is else respirable" (rather than .1008 respirable 

particles). The final EIS should be changed to reflect this new data. 

3 .5.5.7•, 

CMill A Page 5 of 9 

CMI11 A page 6 of 9

1 

147 

1-47 

F-s 

Cal 

4.1.11 

4.1.11 

4.2.55 

3.5.2.9 

Kd;tp/20l COE.RL 

JUL 31 19e6 

LOGIC DIAGRAMS 

614-7 

i'/M DIVISION 

11 The HDW-DEIS has of necessity been prepared before final optimized 

designs are available for all processes, and certain research and demonstration 

projects are necessary to be completed for the disposal options. 

The question that keeps risingis what Is the next step or approach 

that will be selected if any of these designs or technologies Pail? Are 

there alternatives or variables that can be considered? What are the 

Implkatlon3 of failure? 

For example. in response to my questions, several alternatives were 

identified: 

Failure Possible Alternative 

Barrier System In Situ Vitrification. 

Great Shemin. ureerforealdehyde, or 

vinyl ester styrene waste forms. 

Clinics loop coaling is being examined as an alternative in eliminating 

the use of cribs. 

Logic diagrams identifying the next beet variable or alternative to be 

considered would increase confidence of disposal solutions. 

2. Due to: 1) the fact that there are any technical issues that must 

be closed; 21 that the DEIS does not include all defense waste; 3) that 

wine work is underway or planned under the Hanford Waste Management 

Plan; and e) then actions are many ways interrelated and dependent 

upon the success of another action, the final EIS should include a logic 

'diagram for the sequence of events of performance that Would bit taken 

for confidence of not being 'locked-in" to some particular course. 

These alternative technologies should be described. The logic diagrams 

would show the rule of integration in the process and the schedules kr 

testing. 

CL05SARY 

There are a number of Acronyms used in the DEIS that do not appear in the 

glossary. For example: BNL, AGNS. ENC, EGG, PER, NFS, RLFCM, SRL, 

RHO, WCF, etc. The final EIS should include these ammissions to enhance 

readership. 

TRANSVERSE DISPERSION: 

The DEIS states that present acquirer rtoracteriilatlon permits a complicated 

conceptual. model an transverse dlspersim effects, but the necessary computer 

software is not presently available for application to the Hanford bite. 

(Vol. 3, page 0.32) 

DOE has responded that Incorporation of transverse dispersion effects Into a 

model would not improve the analysis of radiological Impacts and it is not 

planned that the more complicated conceptual model will be employed in the 

dedsion-making process. 

CMIII A Page ? of 9 

RLL,--: -D ,OE-RL 

JUL 311966 0147 

t . ,pe n.. ".LION 

The Mal EIS should f Include the remains DOE ones not plan todevelop the 

computer software for the additional analysis on transverse dispersion effects. 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The primary responsibility for emergency response planning and capability 

lies with State and local governments. The DEIS names federal agencies that 

provide planning assistance and emergency support to cope with radiological 

hazards (Vol. 2, Section 1.9). 

The final EISshould expand Section 1.9 to include the scope of direct support 

provided by these agencies. 

SLAGGING PYROLYSIS INCINERATOR: 

The geologic alternative uses the Slagging Pyrolysis Incinerator (SPI) process 

to reduce volume. SPI is not used in the Reference Alternative. 

The Mal EIS should Include the reasons SPI. is not used in the Reference 

Alternative. 

CONCLUSIONS 

1. Several reasons exist that make it Inadvisableat this time to support 

one of the specific alternatives stated in the DEIS; 

a. the many areas that require additional research and development 

for needed technology to support a given alternative; and 

b. the Interrelationship Of separate programs that exist to deal with 

the different types of defense waste on the Hanford site. 

3. In my judgement. the DEIS supports disposal strategies and Implementation 

decisions for the following Waste types: 

e. Doubla-Shell Tank Waste [geologic); 

b. Retrievably Stored and Newly Generated Transuranic Waste 

(WIPP); 

C. Strontium and Cesium Capulsas fgeologic). 

3. The DEIS supports the need to fund further research and data collection 

for the following waat. types: 

a.. Single Shell Tank Waste; 

b. Pre-1910 Burled TRU-Contaminated Solid Waste; 

c. TRU-Contaminated Sell Sites. 

No alternative for these waste types shouldbe finalized until the effectiveness 

of an engineered. barrier is demonstrated, the calibration of 

computer models with field data manifests a high degree of confidence, 

and applicable waste retrieval methods receive additional review. (Although 

TRU-Contaminated Soil Sites and Pre-1970 TRU Buried Solid 

Waste Sites are considered to have been disposed of, but are being 

CMIII A Page 9 of 9 

3.4.2.24 

3.3.5.6 

3.3.5.3 

2.3.1.14 

3.3.5.3 

3.3.5.3 

3.1.3.26

Es 

14 

M0 

RECEIVED DCE-RL 

3.1.3.26 

3.2.4.1 

2.2.1 

2.2.9 

JUL 3I1 1988A61 C, 

(47 

reviewed to determine whether further action is Wi3PYHHCw terms of 

environmental protection, they should be revisited considering the 

development from actions enumerated in the preceading y sentence). 

4. Single-Shell Tank Waste may warrant additional NEPA review far either 

In-Place Stabilization or Ceologi, die,..[. 

S. The protection of the acquifers and the Columbia River should be 

paramount In disposal decisions. 

6. In the Interest of public health and safety: 

a. The final EIS should be completed on a timely basis; and 

b. Funding for defense waste clean-up at the Hanford site should 

receive high priority. 

R.A. Holton/EI9 

Us Dept of Energy 


P O Bas S50 

$iChlandf WA 99352 

M 1 c In a o 1 L. C l e r k 

.1008 Prospect A HE 

Olympia, WA 98586 ' 

Jut, 11. 1986 

4$ 

dui 31 1906 6 1 

p1NON•p101't 

This is a ..meant 

regarding the Hanford Defense Waste Draft 

Ea y .I.m... tal Impact Statement. 

2.3.2.8 

3.2.4.1 

2.3.1.3 

2.3.1.14 

to 3.5.5.42 

V 

2.3.2.7 

3.4.3.7 

2.2.13 

3.3.4.2 

3.4.2.24 

2.3.2.9 

2.2,1 

COMMENTS MADE BY I'HE PUBLIC TO CLARENCE BARNETT AS A. MEMBER 

OF THE NORTHWEST CITIZENS' FORUM ON DEFENSE WASTED 

'(Comments are abbreviated and bring out only the salient points.) 

Open Roun d in Yakima Informative, 

Workshop in Yakima helped . to understand problems associated with 

Defense Waste. 

A Public Hearing on the DEIS should have been held in Yakima. 

Columbia River contamination is major concern. 

Repository Issue is more important than Defense Waste.. 

All Defense Waste should be in DEIS. 

Need independent epidennioiaglcal study. 

Insufficient time to comment on DEIS. Short comment period builds up 

emotions. - 

Sablaim, net addressed in DEIS. 

State should manitor cleanup. 

Keep waste above ground so can be monitored. 

Put all waste In Monitored Retrievable Storage. 

Need strict regulations for truckers. 

DOE should assume more emergency response responsibility. 

Have panel of scientists make independent review of FEIS before It is 

I ... ad. 

Economic risk analysis needed. 

Safety. over long-tern, not cast, should be the major consideration. 

It in obvious that nmlear wastes have to be diapers etl of 

somawhere t even if most persons n. r proposed sites a aree going to 

have very s misgivings about proximity 

fo them. If 

Hanford is finally settled u P on a ..to for Disposal of this 

very toxic waste; I believe that the method used Should be deep 

burial. 

I have no Information regarding the details of the specific 

process being considered in the Geologic Disposal Alternative. 

However; I would like to go on Cord suggesting that the process 

of a .sing wastes i solid glass b leeks be used in this disposal 

alternative.. I understand that this is superior method due to 

the ..tram. temporal stability of glass (that 1s to say that it 

does not break dawn significantly over Lang periods of time). 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. 

8I 

// 

1' 

Ni Clark 

3.3.1.1 

3.1.8.9 

CM111 A Page 9 of 9

z' a Îe 0 

ME 

150 

JUL 28 MM 

w 3.3.3.1 

3.3.1.5 

3.1.3.26 

OFFICE OF PROGRAM RESEARCH 

Hautt of Reprtxrna.iw" 

RECE .=`J S;O'aRL 

l\i_ 

mar 29, 1986 

Me. Ric, gram 

U.H. DWarlavlt of LtargY 

Mehland Operatics Office 

Ricldancl, Wasted teas 99352 

Uar Mr. Holtae 

JUL3110 0141 

Willi OiViS1ON 

O ,smemp 1ta full. on tha isle. "Disp osal of Hanford Dabs. High-level, 

RYmmem,ma c, and Techc Reatse" EOEJDEIB-0111. Cie is are sy dm. 

,be ,,m i..^l,,, m (in additim to time required "M actioM1" alternati ) nmea 

altarrntivea; almost cmples gaolegic dispsms 1, cmplete in 1place 

atelailiretion, and a zafereaoe altacrimuW that is a mobiLation. 

I belie ak them should m another alGSmtive. Y. might call it e 

"®bisatim of them asbilatlma". 

USWE's om*imtim altexxwtiva, as vritta,, h ome an aXL- mothim ttr 

apprmact, to the air i all tans. 'lia aYd'eMS of all te ch® are eiH 

ahsbll5zed ]n piece w rmarmd arcs eetmarkrl for deep geologic disponal. 9m 

aingle-sell tazik ca2aRs vary aiid, aaar'lisg1Y, disPceition ahwld vary. m 

waldn^t make eve to eiOtY a taNC whidf aoemt't m^Rxin Farmfla climnl®la 

apd „}pa i^n.rl idea wand dozy to ixti~rorsequMt;af levels in a Few 

cle boomea. On the ,and call- ems texBm may haw significant ^.^•w••^" ma 

of 2amfi1 d^mi®1.9 and lortl'livad 1-ÎOtpY.11dea. 

,xin ejr,,, zll tech[ sbeald be mwidared on a twee-ty-c?ea bask. Eittxr 

floors &.old m ffi.a¢ata mRent v i ¢' requi-rsi aamplrn3 of rant me of 

mtl, tame. Both raa3 •^.tf a• ami tu,-xadiot>ctive szaNraia flimis): caftent 

alms, be evalnatsd ani a decision made whether to mtebilles or rm e. I 

mime, the melt oY this appmatl, wm,le m atsbiliaitg e®e eirgle-smll tacha 

amt an'tyin, opisn. 

CYriein ptme-1970 tranA¢enlc mit es, idetifiad in thm BIIG, ehwld be a Boas "I 

.I.Oul , cvemixaratim. JUL this Cos+; radiomslida onnsittmtlm arch location 

farad ben imprnterR mince half liven are lag. 

,imag e you for tM rppottamity to amamE on the VETS. 

Blzraxaly, 

Etalerick e. )Ba ir, lae eara Ma allet 

Ibuee Earg , a Utilitim 0mandittee 

July 16, 1986 

United States Department of Energy 

Attn: Karen Mheeless 

Mail Stop FED/706 

Pont Office Be. 550 

Richland. Washington 99352 

Subject: Comments an Draft EIS for Disposal of Hanford Defense Wastes 

Dear Ms. Wheeless: 

CRY OF 

Mk Bel l. ComNalaer 

PORTLAND, OREGON E xldl zosw naaor 

Ponland Oregon gKICA-1926 

BUREAU OF WATER WORKS 

RECEn, ,- + 0E-P,L 

JUL 3 1 1986 !,mac 

`JAN DIVISION 

I. regret that I was not able to attend the recent public hearing in _Portland 

concerning the Draft Environmental Im act Statement for the Dis .sal of Hanford 

Defense. Ni h-Level ransuran IC. and Tan Wastes. Alt ( ) ugh was out of t e 

country at the time of the public hearing, I would like to take this opportunity 

to express my support for comments submitted at the public hearing by the Mayor. 

other City Commissioners, and Edward Tenny, Administrator of the Portland Bureau 

of Water Works. 

1 

The City of Portland has gone to great lengths to ensure a safe, ample water 

supply for the local area. In order to continue this high level of commitment 

to our current and future citizens. it is essential that the region's water 

resources be protected against contamination by radioactive wastes. Protection 

Of the Columbia River must be a paramount concern in order not only to preserve 

the existing investment in the Portland wellfields, but also to preserve future 

water supply alternatives for Portland. Given the long life of the wastes in 

question. it seems that the adopted disposal system must be essentially free 

of any risk of environmental contamination.' 

Because of the importance of this matter to the City, I st ro nglyencourage DOE 

to conduct further research into the possible downstream impacts of radioactive 

waste leakage into the Columbia River. Please feel free to contact my office 

or Ed Teeny to further discuss such a study. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer these co mm ents. The City looks forward 

to a satisfactory solution to this very important and complex problem. 

Sincerely. 

^2

e"_4 a 

2 

Is 

51 

F-' 

LD 

ro 

N 

4- 

4-i 

C 

O 

ro 

•r 

C 

E 

OUO 

s 

RECEIVED UOERL 

S.H. Leroy 

U.s. Department Of Energy JUL 31 1988- 

Public Affairs 

P.D. So. 550 

HIM DIVISION 


Department of energy: 

A few Comment. an the Defense Waste DEIS produced by the 

DOE. 

The world's largest storehouse of radioactive are 

containing a. amount comparable to all the fall-out that has 

even reach this .planet is located in the pacific northwest 

an the banks of the Columbia River. 

On these rolling basalt hills, the Dept, of Defense(War) 

laid claim to 570 square miles of territory in 1941 for the 

,reduction of the world's first genocide weapons known to 

mankind. This Hanford .Military Reservation is still making 

war on the health of the surrounding environment. 

The by-products of the government's 40 year history are 

immense amounts of waste -- some of this waste so 

radioactive i. rill be around for 500,000 years. The 

governments r^cord in a Ear. cry from resolving the problem 

of what to do with all this toxic and highly radioactive 

waste. 

A partial inventory of the waste at Hanford one will finds 

-135 million gallons of high-level liquid waste 

produced since 1944 during reprocessing of uranium fuel 

cells to remove plutonium for nuclear weapons. This waste 

contains dozens of deadly radioactive isotopes. 

-some .200 billion gallons of low and intermediate 

liquid waste have been dumped into ponds or discharged into 

the soil in underground drainfields. Some of this waste 

contains radioactive isotopes with half-lives of 4.5 billion 

yearn has reached the the water table under the Sandford 

reservation. 

-another 5 million plus cubic feet of solid radioactive 

waste consisting of refuse and contaminated equipment are 

stored in covered trenches atHanford. This practice is 

considered permanent disposal of these waste by the DOE. I 

consider this a -nuclear nitwit" version of "out of sitar 

out of mind' . 

-from the PURRS ,last the DOE dempe 9 billion. of toxic 

and radioactive waste by-products into cribs per year. This 

practice has gone co mbated for years. 

Eesfdes these Particular practices of the last 40 years, the 

American public has to endur consistent subversion of 

information, lying, and deceit from the government and the 

WE at the Sandford Nuclear Reservation. 

The.gevernments' secrecy policy on radiation mistakes is the 

Same now as it was decades ago. The AEC withheld 

information about radioactive liquid that had leaked out of 

its' underground storage tanks at Sandford nuclear 

installation. in a January 1959 subcommittee of the joint 

committee on atomic energy, a general electric official 

responsible for managing Hanford's waste testified "no 

environmental hazard will exist as long as the tanks 

maintained their integrity---we have never detected a leak 

from any of these tank, so that we are I. turn persuaded 

that none has ever leaked". A year later the AEC asserted 

in its annual report that 'waste problems have proved 

completely manageable." The fact remains the Hanford tanks 

had started leaking two years earlier, in 1958, the public 

did not learn that Hanford-. tanks Were leaking until years 

later. Other tank leaks at unnoticed for weeks. Some of 

thee. leak. were 2000 gallon. , but a 1973leaked dumped 

115,000 gallon. of high level wset. into the soil. Total 

releases have been 454,000 gallons or more. Are the now 

double-walled stainleea steel tanks which store this highly 

radioactive waste.. security to p revent this highly 

carcinogenic fzem getting into the environment? i do not 

think the tanks are safe.. 

On the subject of permissible levels of radiation, the 

government is consistent in discrediting and terminating 

research project. that may suggest all is not as well as 

claimed. Dr. Samuel Milhan Jr. study of more than 500,000 

males who died in the state from 1950. to 1971 concluded that 

workers at the hanford nuclear plant were more likely to die 

of cancer thanother Washington state males. Dr. Milhan 

eventually lost the funding for continued research. 

The government.' behavior of concealing mistake.{ issueing 

misleading statements, repudiation of report s that disease 

And death may be attributed to radiation doses, and 

intolerances to dissent with the nuclear indumtry must 

change coarse. For the public distrust is to great an 

obstacle to overcome. 

Why le it the public was not informed of the December 2, 

1949 discharge of 5,500 curiae of 1-131 an iodine isotope 

which concentrates in human thyroid p ... ibly causing massive 

functional damage and later . yielding thyroid moduITS and 

canner. By camper :son, a single release of 15 curies of 

2.5.5 

2.2.12 

3.1.4.28 

2.5.5 

RECEN,i3 rn -RL 

•^n^--x'1986 p^5^ 

WMOIVISION

t 

f- 

- 

I-131 at Three Mile Island was a suspected cause of health weapons grade plutomium. The N-plant is net nary 

effects in human fetus.. and new-borne infants. 

because the U.S. military has 220,000 pounds ofcplutonium 

and 1000 pounds of highly enriched uranium. It seems clear 

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 

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 

-1955. Other radioisotope., inducing rhuthenium-106 vented reactor to the hands of the DOE that is loaded with long 

into the atmosphere to cause skin irritations as far away as lived radioactive inventory of more than 1000 Hiroshima 

Spokane. 

bombs} 

My was it the public was not inform of these releases and The Dept.ef Energy should be subject to the same 

the potential to human health. There is strong evidence the environmental regulations in its management of chemical and 

Sanford officials covered-up this information. There was 

concern for the public safety in this time as well ae 

radioactive waste as is private industry. Speefically, 

timelines of the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act 

^. ' ^^ 

concern for the public safety now: A March 1948 document 

(RCAA)., Superfund (CENCLA), and the Federal Water Protection 

contained a wen,ing from Hanford health physicist Dr. Herb Agency and the State Department of Ecology should oversee 

Parker indicating -The theoretical possibility of injury 

the DOE'S management of the military wastes. At present, 

developing 10 to 15 years from no e poses a serious problem^ . the DOE is both the polluter and iits own regulator. The DOE 

decision to drop the search for a second repository must be O e O 1 4 

The Hanford Nuclear. Reservation host the PURE% facility and challenged to place the military wastes into a repository. L L 1`t 

2.5.5 Rod waat.. Th. EPURE%rplant ithe 7th int....is. atn Hanford s onsideringatheni ofp ^the y, 

(NEPA) byYnot impact dropping search 

chemically breaks down irradiated fuel rude free a uranium for a second repository, on disposal of military wastes. 

reactor to Squire deadly plutonium Pu-239. The N-reactor 

suppliesthe -irradiated fuel rode for the PUREE plant. - Much of the anxiety that the nuclear waste now provokes - 

Would never have materialised if the federal government and 

A study released this spring in Spokane the HEAL 

scientific unity ty. had been candid from the beginning. 

O organization has documented over 10 times the amount of They Were Dort Both sised. that radioactive waste posed O . C 55 

particulates ip Spokane soil than average levels little or no hazard; both , insisted that the technology for L J 

O Pof plutonium fallout due to world-wide nuclear weapons dealing with it was proven. One glaring failure after 

te.tng This contradicts Mike Let m.... viewpoint that àll mother has pco.rn them incorrect. From buriel grounds to 

- the plutonium particles dispense before g it reaches the reprocessing proved the .experts wrong and planted seeds of 

reservation boundaries. Six "miles from the PURER smoke 

public mistrust. Public mistrust that will not diminish with 

.tack, It Seem&:that Mr. Lawrence is not telling the 'truth ♦ - the current attitude the nuclear industry has towards the .. 

people of Washington state and its envizonmeent, - 

October of 1984, PURE% was shut dome for one month due to a 

" 

loss of 10-13 kilograms of plutonium powder. -Six pounds of My-recommendation, is to dissolve the current DElS process - 

plutonium is still unaccounted for. °Mere did it go? 

and incorporate the public comment, ideas, and suggestion 

Perhaps the plutonium went up the PUREE Stack`. I have nq 

rather than continue with this farcicle procedure the DOE is 2.3.2.10 

confidence of PUREE plant Safety and waste operations: - cramming down the threats at Washington State citizens. 

The W-plant has a , dual purpose, It produces plutonium and 

generates elect, !city. It has graphite core of 1800 

T k 

l onem oW 

n ic than the Chernobyl hector; it is fueled by 

enriched anrhnd uranium, 365 tonnes when fully loaded. It is 

- cooled with ordinary water from the Columbia Aijvec. The 5 9e am Lane - 

confinement building can withstand 5 p.a.i., the Chernobyl's Edmonds, WA 98020 

" Contain nt structure could withstand 27 p.5.i.. The 

primary purpose of the N-reactor is the production of 

RECEIVED 

ME-RL° 

- - RECEIVED DOE-RL 

JUL 31 1906 

- - JUL 310 WMDIVISION 

WMDIVISION 

0151

EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?