EIS-0113_Section_11 - Hanford Site

' a 7 3 0 9 7
Nl
231 231
i < ^.es e
1. The ere. in which affects of the P,.,.add Project wi ll he fell; proposal was inadequate under NEPA when it failed to discuss other dumping and
drmi,ing projects in the ...a area. The cowl rejected tie N.1,1. Argument that
Ul
V
N
2.3.1.14
2. The impacts that arc expected in that area from tie proposed project; many of the other projects had not been finally Approved or that Nose . projects
were un re lated to the Navy!s'propoml the court found that the once projects were
.
3. Other action -pest, proposed, and redounded, foreseeable - Met have had or more .Nan mere speculation, Out They were p1..d or existed in Me same
ere expected to have impacts in the Game area;
geographical area, involved dredging and disposal of spe % and presented similar
pollution problems. The court therefore requ ired Me environmental import
4. The impacts or expected Impacts from thaw other actions; and statement to consider all of the projects in the area. Id. at 84; see also, Na ti onal
5. The overall impact that can he expected if the Individual impacts are
snowed to ecourn.10c.
Pri tiofsan v. Alexander 442 P.2d 1225 En CR. 1985)
Wild li fe Federation v. U.S. Forest Service 592 F.S.pp. 931 (D. Or. 1984).
S. The Defense Waste DEN fells to discuss the applleatien of r.Ia y..t hazardous
..to laws.
While It is stated th at an app li cable laws will be followed Me statements are vague
Rased oa Determination 3 Above, Me following actions card facili ti es should es e and conflic tive. The DEN does not address Me requirements and Me intent of
minimum, sheuldbe considered in the DEN:
federal environmental law embodied, par ticularly, in RCRA and CERCLA
(5uperfund-). Defense waste dispo sa l ac ti viti es must carry out the intent of NWPA
1. BWIP high-level nuclear w as te repository; .ad Me standards estab li shed to support NWPA by NnC (10 C.F.A. 00) and EPA (40
C.F.R. 191); otherwise an ineoaslstenl duel system is. established in which the lower
2.4.1.1
2.4.1.9
2. N-reactor; standards of the defense-only disposal scheme will defeat Me p ur pose of NWPA and
3. Pares and othe 200 was plants;
other federal laws.
In par ticular, provisions of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) exemp ti on na me defense
4. Decommissioning, demmiata natio n, and disposal of Me B, C. 4 DR, F, 14 waste streams from federal standard must not be used to bypass what is in effect a
KE, and R te meet ... I
form repository un der NWPA. AEA creates Me exemp ti on for Me se ts purpose of
preventing undue interference with defense and national security programs, and to
5. F as t Plea: Test Fac il i ty; carry Me exemp ti on over Into mattem of environmental sa fety, me asur ed, in
geologic time, cannot be justified either In terms of ..U..) environmental policy
8. 300 area laboratorlea; or statuto ry intent. The DEN must demonstrate Met permitting requrements of
federal and state law can be satisfied at all dispo sa l sites, and especia lly that state
4. WPPSS WNP-2 power plant; req,'vemente for protection of groundwater quality can be met. As federal And
S. U.S. Metal, low4evel radioactive waste disposal facility .
M ur es
Nat al Resourc Def en se Counc il Me. v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 49 Clad Ch.
1945), the wart held that an environmental impact statement for a Navy , dumping
state definitions of "mixed' chemical and radioactive waste a re developed And
appropriate standards end jurisdictions are established, defense w as te ac tions must
be shown to be capable of comp li ance by the time any Record of Decision Is Issued.
2.4.1.1
F1