EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

^.^'
0 7® 0170
RECE VEU DOE-RL
RECEIVEt7 DOE
-RL
- JUL 18 1986
(AT
- WNI 18 LM ION
Page 2 WMDIVISION Page 3
6070
MDIVISION
In 1982, Congreas enacted the Nuclear Warta Policy Act. The Policy Act already made Its decision about the disposal or the to 1s, the
eatablishes a progr am for the deep geologic: dlslual of commercial
aSngle-shell tanks..
high-level nuclear Waste. Me Act also allows the President to
determine whether high-level-defense Waste x111 also be disposed of in
I do not believe that Ys,-place stabilization of the xaete. I, the
the commeroial repository. President Reagan, In Me spring of 1985, single-ahell tan s, should be e. pe,.At disposal option. At best, it
.us the dominion to permit eemmlngling of defense and eeamerclel highmaybe
a tempor ar y solution but it should not be the final decision. 3.3.2.1
2.4.1.4
level Waste in one repository. .The President's decision to .approve. The single-shell tanks are not safe for the permanent dispoaal of these
commingling forged a link between cmamr.fal an d defense high-level.
Wastes. MAY have leaked in the past; some allege that they continue
waste disposal.
to leak. These Wastes should be disposed Of 1s, a reposiEOry. the
health and safety of future geneeatlom should not be sacrificed
O
W
. ,
The licage between the commercial and defame Waste disposal programs bameae the coat of repository disposal say be greater than in-place
Was further strengthened by the May 28 decision of Secretary Herrington stabilization. Safety, not econoaAim. must drive the disposal 2.2.3
to postpone -indefinitely the site selection process for a second decision.
repository. It appears tome t ha t the comercial repository progr am
2. 1.10
say be driving the disposal option dacieiens far defame xante. The fie credibility of the U.S. Department of Energy is highly s us pect
final environmental a mWo.ent (EA) released on Hay 28th makes since the Nay 28 decision to "indefinitely postpone- the alto selection
assumptions about the mount of defame mate that Would be co mmingled
In a commercial repository. The EA assures that moats if not all, of
Process for a second repository. I share the view that the
Department's decision violatem the spirit and letter of the law as
3.3.2.1 the waste I. the single-.h.11 tads, Will he stabilized in place; that embodied in the Nucle ar Made Policy Act. Consequently, I m somewhat
Ss, not disposed of in a repository. The "indefinite postpoeeeent" of gun-shy about participating in the defense mate disposal process for
the selection process for a second repository also appears to rely on fear that the Department say again engage In arbitrary and capricio us
e
2 . 5 . 5
^f
3. 3 . J . /
this ass um ption Which my result in g reater pressure for in-place
atabilizatiun of these xaa to. an es to not affect the capacity of the
first repository Which In limit ed to 70.000 ietrie tom. SOLD of thee.
factors lend credence to the belief t hat the Department Won in fact
behavior. The state of Washington participated in goad faith in
activities undertaken pursuant to the Nucle ar Waste Policy Act only to
have the rug yanked out &m under us on Hay 28. My should We expect
different treatment by. the Department In the defense Waste
M,Iranmentml Impact Statement proem? As I have already mentioned,