EIS-0113_Section_11 - Hanford Site

1 a
F Y ( 0 6 €10 a
2,213F
22.E
4.
IP
INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OVERVIEW ., 8190502
The Washington State Nuclea,. Waste Board has coordinated an extensive review of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level,
Transuranic and Tank Wastes. Reviews were conducted by Board eommittecs, the Nuclear
Waste Advisory Council, ,are .,amiss had citizens. The Baird and Council sprusoend a
series of public meetings to receive namment, o. the Defense Waste DEIS. Over 800 citizens
< attended and more than zoo offered comments.
2.3.1 14
This Statement Overview is based, in part, on detailed comments which follow. Appendix A
contains he Individual comments of stare agencies. Appendix B ... trips local government
comments. Appendix C contains statements made during USDOE hearings by Governor
Gardner. Warren A. Bishop. Chair of he Nuclear Waste Board, Andrea Be.,,, Bieiks,
Director. Department of Ecology, and Representative Dick Nelson. Appendix D contains the
compiled results of the five public meetings conducted by the Board and Council in Yakima,
Kennewick, Spokanq Vereouver aad Sinatra. Appendix E contains the technical review
comments prepared by URS Corporation, a am selmnt to the Board This overview and the
appendices comprise the Board's response to the adequacy of the Defense Waste. DEIS.
The Board recogmaes the inherent complexity associated with cleanup of a 40-year accumuration
of defense wastes This document presents our current findings. We expect to continue
working with USDOE to clarify and resolve issues.
This overview highlights the major policy, technical, legal, regulatory and transportation
issue, raised during In. review period. m adchtims. it amui.s. p,.pa,al ter issue reaomtimwhile
the Final EIS is bang prepared
The major areas of concern identified include the following issues which must be addressed
is the Final EIS
The seapr of the DEIS' loo narrow because it does not address the full range or
radioactive and chemical Components of wastes.-
ve 196P
bza3
- The uncumeaI eaamirs nvetly o ptimistic penfpfmanee rseaesmaes far [allocated 3.5.1.57
soil barriers.
- The USDOE vitrirleation plant .11recative dues .m commit to a facility designed
and sized to handle all tank wastes in a timely, efficient manner.
- USDOE puns for disposal or son-high level wastes (grant) do an, include mass
alon g for obtainin g federal,!mare hazardous waste permits.
- The tloeumenl uses bounding assumptions to cover a range of impacts or ossumproan
the. spacirically identifying imacts as
lionsm p of 'the' proposal squired b) 2.4.1.17
,be National Environmental policy Act
- Delayed Records of Decision are n cmttm because PSDOE has not committed m
preparing supplemental EIS's which include opportunities for citizen comment.
- if Hanford remains a repository candidate. USDOE all have a mo.imring program
is place which can determine if the source of environmental consiminadon
is from a repositor y or from defense vortex,
2.3.2.3
2. 1.10
- The doaument due, nod acko0wledge CSDOE's a,p ... ibilitc to comply with
2.4.1.1'l
appropriate federal and state laws. .
- The USDOE decision to delay work oil a record repository increases pressure
within USDOE to stabilize the singm .shm tank wastes in place, and raises the
ern that
deep geologic disposal is lo not considered as a scion: ellmeneve ter
all took wastes.
3.3.5.7
- The document falls to address the possessor' and usage rights and cultural
2.4.2.2
heritage of native people.
The overall gaol of the aisle of Washm,me is 1a ensure the timely oe...p, m the degree
possible. of the 40- year accumulation of Hart wastes while amazing future waste is
n.sun antl disposed as generated. In the Final EIS. USDOE goals should be eleariv identified
If the USDOE goal differs from the state of Washington gaol, the rationale for such
differences should be clearly explained
-2-