EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

$'a
s
r3 - 4 i
S
+ 'n 0 ^_1a
e d ^-k 0
Ea
069
069
CD
F—g
RECEIVED 286
6.
JUL i U 1986 604A
WM DIVISION
FAGLI E O p %=k1EN V0'IEHS OP WASHINGTON
IIINuonly l'Y.\TA Ism.Amba'rnesr aFAT1i8 N'aaH IXnION 9911] n1y ..
Comments on the U. S. Department of Defense
Draft Environmental Impact $Cut eme.t on Defense Waste
July 15, 1986
I an Ruth Coffin, President of the League of Women Voters of
Washington. Our comments are on the subject EIS and on the
overall waste disposal process entrusted to the Department of
Energy.
The League of Women Voters has benefited from a close and
cooperative relationship . with the Washington State Nuclear Waste
Board, the Office of Nuclear Waste Management, and the Nuclear
Waste Advisory Council on which two of our members serve. We
have also observed or participated in a variety of meetings and
workshops relevant to defense waste and/or waste management at
Hanford. We generally defer to and concur with the comments
under preparation by the Nuclear Waste Board and undergoing
extensive coordination within the state prior to the August 9th
deadline for public Comment. While we recognize and expect that
those draft review comments may be further refined, v e are most
appreciative of the openness of our stare officials in
circulating their issue analysis at public meetings throughout
the state and for their receptivity to citizen viewpoints.
One characteristic of the State of Washington's approach we wish
you would emulate is an avoidance of the project-specific or
programmatic app ... Ch to complex technical and policy issues
which are frequently inextricably interrelated, .irrespective of
the class of waste.. The general public really cannot cope well
1 .1.1 with your compartmentalization of the issues. Likewise. some
4
failure to provide non - technical explanations, questions and
n vex . and ocher tools gulch the nos-expert citizen ham the
[!.e and fee It is to romprehand discourages unders ta nding and
participation in this very important question of public policy.
sl_
RECEIVED DO E-RL
dUL 18 1986
Qdb9
2
VVfd DIVISION
We of the League of Women Voters share the State of Washington's
belief that thisprocess is ant the usual type of HIS review. We
are emphatically not in the position of marshaling arguments
against s major federal action. .Instead, we are all responsible
p
far helping you find ways co ensure through remedial measures and 2e 3. 2 . 12
planning that Hanford defense wastes are disposed of safely and
effectively. The League endorses the generally supportive stance
of our state towards the USDOE's commitment to improve waste
management at Hanford. In return, we urge you to cooperatively
assist in meeting the program requirements of the Washington
State team and, specifically, to anticipate and comply with the
public's continuing need for timely, accurate and complete
info] ma clan.
With respect to the draft EIS, we have three major concerns to
ezpce ss.
(1) We urge you to revise the analysis in both scope and
structure eo provide for ashe approach to an integrated
3.3.5.8
disposal strategy for both the radioactive and associated
chemical wastes. The latter have not gotten the treatment their
presence at Hanford and the hazards they present warrant. The
State will outline in its review Comments an alternative
technical concept for their handling. This concept should be
Investigated by the USDOE.
(2) We urge you to revise the analysis to expressly consider the
technical Implications of presidential decisions: the first, to
commingle defense wastes in a repository and the second, to
Indefinitely postpone the se and reposito ry program and possible
amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to increase tonnage
limits. We share the concern that there may be an underlying
2. 1 . 3
assumption that the single eehell tank wastes are to be stabilized
in place. Such an assumption has ramifications for the
engineering desig n. and capacity of a deep repository. The State
3.3.5.7
of Washington questions if there is an sufficient volume of
intact basalt in the Cohomset flow, and if the site may be 2. 1. 1