EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

More documents

Recommendations

Info

.3 4-4 d d e ^ f iy 4 8 V 05'7 057 Page Eleven RECEIVED DOE-RL JUL 14 1986 tb5^ Page Twelve VIM DIVISION J RECEIVED DOE-RL 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 RECEIVED DOE-RL 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. '
Page 1 and 2:
AR TARGET SHEET The following docum
Page 3:
COYER SHEET RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S
Page 6 and 7:
contained comments regarding its pr
Page 8 and 9:
'Tel, handling container; previousl
Page 10 and 11:
Comment Letter No. Reviewer Affilia
Page 12 and 13:
Comment Letter No. . Reviewer Affil
Page 14 and 15:
I Comment Letter No. Reviewer Affil
Page 16 and 17:
II Comment Letter No. Rev iewer Aff
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 25 and 26:
Processing of Written Continents 1.
Page 27 and 28:
s a 10 4 0 1 001 001 N MG? ], "86 R
Page 29 and 30:
Ea --Z -- 003 004 oea a.nn,om 4u'RR
Page 31 and 32:
,y I F 'S. on ^ g "' 4d '.+A 0 0®4
Page 33 and 34:
• t V RECEIVED DOE-RL 005 Mr. Ric
Page 35 and 36:
$ 3 006 007 doe/ too 7 `7 CITY OF K
Page 37 and 38:
J A ^^ $„ 3§ 009 010 /6 RECEIVED
Page 39 and 40:
Oil RECEIVEu DOE-RL JUL 8 10 012 De
Page 41 and 42:
C 8 4 K y CJl 3.3.2.1 Efiec[ an O[h
Page 43 and 44:
gg MW r 2. Comsenta on Lran Environ
Page 45 and 46:
9 015 016 U V/,9 00 i t. R.R. Mot H
Page 47 and 48:
€ - UK 0.1e 001f tt • 115 Locus
Page 49 and 50:
0 4 2 6 zL' 021 021 6c RECEIVED DOE
Page 51 and 52:
0 N U1 023 0"2 Letter in lien of as
Page 53 and 54:
024 025 RE CEIVED DDE -1l,,A C,^.1
Page 55 and 56:
"a 3 q 3 , a ^F sy 025 025 pers REC
Page 57 and 58: 02 7 1 s W U.S.0epartment of Energy
Page 59 and 60: .j 2 a tN +1 \!i ^: J 031 2 .1. 1 I
Page 61 and 62: 033 033 31The vast majority of dual
Page 63 and 64: m ®33 Fixing the Problumis) Year 1
Page 65 and 66: 1 035 036 RECEIVED DC' .. _ L 9d//f
Page 67 and 68: fi ig ,- ^5 a m 1 Js W CO30 TTSalHO
Page 69 and 70: k .^ ij is BE ' 3 Inland Empire Reg
Page 71 and 72: £ 4 5 Yi l:I T g pD43 MQ'p ^TT EC
Page 73 and 74: € f^ »y § ^ o BE ME à:{ HE HON
Page 75 and 76: 0 4 044 4 CJl 1-^ 3 of." tcE'-iVED
Page 77 and 78: ss. M 0044 J. RECEIVED DQE-RL JUL 1
Page 79 and 80: am UK UT 2.3.2.9 2.2.7 2.1.1 REGLIV
Page 81 and 82: sm UI 6641. RECENEU pUE-RL IUL 14 1
Page 83 and 84: 4 2 Ef. •. B91 Ln W 3.3.2.2 3 .3.
Page 85 and 86: ME 04°7 TESTIMONY ON HANFORD N-WAS
Page 87 and 88: E^g ^ d F k 1 f5 £"3 U:, 049 M W 2
Page 89 and 90: c 049 049 0Cn 0040 RECEIVED DOE-RL
Page 91 and 92: J M 051 V 2.5.6 page 2 Morgan July
Page 93 and 94: z 052 053 RECEIVED, DO E-RL JUL 14
Page 95 and 96: Im 053 3 RECEIVED DOEAL OREGON POSI
Page 97 and 98: F f.. WC 053 3 .3.5.3 RECEIVED DOE-
Page 99 and 100: 055 d ll%7C a.vvâ- .;1c Fcw wa^sv
Page 101 and 102: a f 8° 3 _A7 ej is M69 Sf M[SR1' O
Page 103 and 104: 05! ^9 Chairman, Subcommittee on Ge
Page 105 and 106: 05'7 057 Page Five RECEIVED DDE-RL
Page 107: 1 t 6 05'7 05'7 Page Nine RECEIVED
Page 111 and 112: 9 ra am BTi:rif ;.^.EiVc^ Cc-RL [oa
Page 113 and 114: aw RECEIVED COE-RL JUL 1 A 1986 WM
Page 115 and 116: El i 1 1 The OS ME moat ow0 up to t
Page 117 and 118: .rte M OG1 A fiscal year 1988 budge
Page 119 and 120: 3 ^ a 4 9 a DI OG3 V v •F c N v L
Page 121 and 122: 111: 64 My League of Women Voters o
Page 123 and 124: 9- n, a y 067 M& E D ID t? Indeed,
Page 125 and 126: $'a s r3 - 4 i S + 'n 0 ^_1a e d ^-
Page 127 and 128: ^.^' 0 7® 0170 RECE VEU DOE-RL REC
Page 129 and 130: 8 Is Page6 WH RECEIVED DOE.RL JUL 1
Page 131 and 132: :l p 071 071 1— CD V 3.1.4.5 J 3.
Page 133 and 134: 0 72 1 2 0'72 H C) O ID ^/ Y AffAff
Page 135 and 136: i fr F ti 1 074 0'74 H RECEIVED DOE
Page 137 and 138: F a @ k ^Jg f' `f j ?y xt € 75 M
Page 139 and 140: 1 0 HAI 07'7 078 JUL 18 1986 0611 I
Page 141 and 142: € 78 wool N d 3.3.5.7 RECEIVED DO
Page 143 and 144: 2 A rim 0 # 5 x ME o1 _ Raebb Pat-W
Page 145 and 146: 081 RECEIVED DDE-RL JULIB1906 01 Co
Page 147 and 148: 4 7 mm 2.2..3 `7 „ u,/z', 3 o.,^.
Page 149 and 150: 1 u f¢^$y Y$ q{ 3a $ E 4 ^^ 4? Yq
Page 151 and 152: CIE M 086 S^nr . Le ^ / ^ `r'dtl2 H
Page 153 and 154: 1' _ k e .. §} ate¢ ,^ Ell N.=CEI
Page 155 and 156: M 1 t 2.3.1.14 3 .3.1.1 2.1.9 Mary
Page 157 and 158: t^ 092 093 Olympia, July 14. 19 Wa.
Page 159 and 160:
7 - Ej 09 _ - oog17 Q97 9052 39th A
Page 161 and 162:
. '^ ,. ^ ^ std a 1':p 099 100 July
Page 163 and 164:
n P F 1 102 103 I^ RECEIVED DOEAL .
Page 165 and 166:
- 3 n fi ..i 0 ^ c 33441. -'2. 1 "
Page 167 and 168:
ON Im \4k16 Sb 3 '^-6\ WA RECEIVED
Page 169 and 170:
4, Y^ EM 107 108 2 .1 WE has violat
Page 171 and 172:
D k ^wT 1W IM RECEIVED DOERL keC FI
Page 173 and 174:
110 111 3.2.6.3 2.5.1 2.5.1 3.3.1.1
Page 175 and 176:
e`4 ^ 3 fr8 ^^ k 3 xp U .,y1 Ill il
Page 177 and 178:
M -15 RECEIVED DOE-RL JUt22 OSS aiM
Page 179 and 180:
e RECEIVED DOE-RL JUL 22 1986 t0lb
Page 181 and 182:
LM . . Hl V continue to cause. nur.
Page 183 and 184:
a,1i 5 q.d 120 nu 3.5.5.28 3.3.2.1
Page 185 and 186:
3.3.5.4 3.3.4.2 2.5.6 121 RECEIVED
Page 187 and 188:
d ! d a 5 6 9_ :^v`s Im F_m FY "'L
Page 189 and 190:
d m 125 s(fllEm61r Pap- TM Pabkc 1A
Page 191 and 192:
x 8 ^ f ti r^ ' 3 ^ 4g L.';;., 2'7
Page 193 and 194:
3 .. g g jky Sw 6 128 Page 3 - RECE
Page 195 and 196:
N a :. S 1 29 V N 2.5.5 2.2.14 2.2.
Page 197 and 198:
•1 3 J ' ¢ I 6 130 1130 RECEIVED
Page 199 and 200:
s Ì V t;1) 133 V OF Okk Dogln CmM
Page 201 and 202:
_ y ou op } op o uopeaaua8 a ]nF a
Page 203 and 204:
G 4 i `; F4 Y7 136 13'7 V 2.5.6 2.2
Page 205 and 206:
51 0 13 19 DO W F-' 3.3.3.1 Th9 Ove
Page 207 and 208:
d 3 a. Hou MM NECE-0 !?OE-RL Holton
Page 209 and 210:
13 .4A RECEIVED DOE-RL 3.1.2.5 3.1.
Page 211 and 212:
is 443 143 N W V 3.5.5.28 3.3.2.1 R
Page 213 and 214:
fi e T i 8 # ^'^ ^ I^ 5 a x ?'2. ea
Page 215 and 216:
3%_ 3 —ie v^ F f ,lo1075-94 #,1 1
Page 217 and 218:
147 147 3.3:5,5 RECEPr--D rJOE-RL C
Page 219 and 220:
M 11/7 '14'7 .,ÊccnAIZ23 ÔE-RL ou
Page 221 and 222:
Es 14 M0 RECEIVED DCE-RL 3.1.3.26 3
Page 223 and 224:
e"_4 a 2 Is 51 F-' LD ro N 4- 4-i C
show all

EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?