EIS-0113_Section_11 - Hanford Site

f 3 a ""10975
In
V
fV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4 The Defense Waste DEIS does not discuss Me disposal of some of DOD'a most radioactive
waste—spent reactor cores from nuclear nave] vessels. Such cores would
2.3.1.14 constitute a significant inventory to be processes If Hanford were used for co- "a Executive Summary indicates net non-high level and non-defense nuclear waste is
disposal of commercial and defense wastes M e higb2evel nuclear waste not considered in the draft EIS. This means that past, present, and future low-level
repository. An impact assessment for this potential DOEMOD activity should be commercial-generated waste, decommissioned submarine reactors, and retired DOE and
included in the Final MS.
foreign production reactors are not discussed in this EIS. Recently released documents
3.3.1.3
OR past radionuclide balances at Hertford indicate That any future development at
5. The Defense Waste DES uses a 'granite repository" for cost calculations used to Hanford, including the proposed BWIP nuclear waste repository, should he comdered in
compere the "geologic disposal alternative" to the "reference alternative." The terms of cumulative environmental and escioecncomic impacts, not separately as is the
"granite" m, dead, repository program was "paatpmwd indefinitely" by The current practice.
Secretary of Energy on May 28, 1986. This postponement may prevent completion
of a granite repository and may invadete Me cost comparisons.
On page x sand paragraph, the statement is made that "the maircemental impacts
- (both short-end long-term) calculated for the Your alternatives generally are low and
show no marked difference among the three disposal alternatives." Too statement is
misleading since many readers will not criEcelly review the appendices, where Appendix
R indicates Net N fie In-51tu and no-action disposal alternatives, fetalitice can be
expected from drilling or excavating into buried strontium and cesium capsules A more
judicious, ec,.tO statement of differential envbommemtal impacts is warranted.
CHAPTERI - GENERAL SUMMARY
2.3.1.14
Better written and more harlot Man Me Executive Summary. Chapter 1 does convey the
significant differences In environmental and health consequences of the four alternatives
being considered in this EIS in Tables S and 4. The discussion of thne tables on page 1.19
does not, however, emphasize these differences and includes little to draw the readers'
attention to the radiological reasons for proposing the reference alternative.
CHAPTER 2- - PURPOSE AND NEED
Descriptions of the statutory requirements appear to be adequate, although discussion of
the "need" for permanent defense waste isolation free the biosphere Is largely absent
To some extend, comparative disposal methods and related havards are described
elsewhere in the document However, more information in Chapter 1 and 2 concerning
Permanent isolation and its role in Protecting Me general public from expos ur e to
ionizing radiation would be helpful to ley readers. This information dead include brief
V
1