EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

_ -
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
RECEIVED DOE-RL
"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.