EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

All 7.
078 078
N
T
3. 5.1.26
RECEIVE() DOERL
duL i8 X88 4879
WM DIVISION
with to place stabilization of wastes rather than actual clean up
and disposal in a repository if the DoE determines that "short
term risks and costs of retrieval and transportation outweigh the
environmental benefits of disposal in a geologic mined
repository.^ (EIS at vi)
We cannot allow the DOE to decide that the cost of cleaning
up the toxic waste dump, that they have made 600 square miles of
2.2.3 central Washington into, is a more important criteria than the
long term health of our public and environment for the eternity
that these wastes pose a hazard for so long as they are left
untouched or swept under a few feet of soil.
The scope of this HIS is also inadequate in that it wholly
fails to describe for the public the scope and nature of existing
contamination of the soils and groundwater of the Hanford
Reservation. Ignored are hundreds of contaminated soil sites,
contaminated ground water streams, the chemical and radionucleide
content of soil disposal cribs and even the high level waste
tanks. Replacing the required description in the EIS of the
actual contamination of the Hanford environment are the most
.amazing public relations statements and terminology. Funny how
the DoE has millions to spend on the PR for its defense waste
management program but, cost is a factor in whether they
clean up after themselves.
Rather than inform the public about the true nature of the
severe threat that Hanford wastes now pose due to leaks and
deliberate dumping practices, the SIR contains statements like
2.2.12
this a to management practices at Hanford were shown ( in the
1915 Environmentalnmental Statement for Hanford Waste Management and
Operations ) to safely and effectively isolate the waste on an
interim basis." (EIS Foreword page v.) -
With Uranium in the groundwater; plumed of contaminated
groundwater from soil dumping heading towards the Columbia River;
500,000 gallons of high level nuclear wastes leaked from single
2.2.12
shell tank.; sail heavily ebn[amina[ed .nouns the tanks;
Plutonium from Hanford in the air and soil of downwind
communities) HOW DARE THE DOE SAY :"Waste management practice. at
Hanford were shown to safely and effectively isolate the waste on
an interim basis'?
Only to the DoE can 30 feet of dirt and crushed rock on top
G
3.3.1.11.
o[- leaking high level nuclear waste tanks be called a permanent
'diction or disposal of nuclear wastes. But with the expenditure
of enough PR money they go one step further and call this a
^geotextile barrier-. To the public it's still nothing more than
30 feet of dirt shovelled on top of the most dangerous wastes
known to humankind. Putheraore. there Is absoluteley no proof
that this is any mare effective at isolating these radioactive
wastes from the environment than the Doe's literally, ae reel as
figuratively, sweeping the leaking vast. task. under m rug.
The DoE has excluded from the scope of the HIS any
discussion of the significant technological and geologic problems
with emplacement of defense high . level nuclear wastes in a
2
RECEIVE'; DOE-RL
' euL 18 1988
dO7P
VqM
geologic repository. The DoE has apparently violated the National
s
Policy Act (NEPA) both d to discuss these
osignificant
fg a secn issues and through deciding [o to
drop
the construction
of a second mined geologic repository.
NEPA requite. th e ion of an Environmental Impact
p
Statement pt10[ to ANY decision op t y lead CO adverse 2.3. 12 .
environmental f which limit. the chof tea on such a
decision.
sion.. NEPA further
ra quf res d tike of all relevantn
environmental
th information by the decision in maker when a decision
with advverse adverse impacts or which limits future cb ices f ads. de. That
a
is a a
exactly thenature off the decision made b y the Secretary of
Energy in announcing h that there will be no second repast [o[ In
8o doing, he has made the Defense Waste HIS a sham. He has
.sad the option of a
leaking
clean up of the wastes in oi
them. In shell high level
nuclear waste tanks and the soil oft
around them. In essence, the Secretary of Energy os decided
these wastes are not gor e siy o
in a because
that 3.3.2.1
there . is not room in one rRe for ȧll the defense fenssee wastes e
as
well as the civilian . wa at ea which moat de into the
he
repository. The Stlatte must Proceed proceed to challenge this f and
demand that it be set aside by the Federal .kart. for failure
consider the considerable environmental t 30 l ha zards of the n place
stab( wast e e o , o shovelling feet of dirt on top of
these Clean Option described in thi s draft EIS.
Clearly, the Departmentof N
E i roan i scared about
Its Sec having violated the National al
Environmental Policy Act when
the Secretary of Energy male de th
the arbitrary,capricious, blatantly
political p
total Th illegal i to aban d n the second
m a It program. s The rthat of E
2 .
a
1.1
decision not only
made
It crystal and clear that the Dog
intended ate move
de io
bl nd legal issues as the groundwater movement
in th
the basalt locks under Hanford
stand in the way of Ha made
selection an a high level nuclear waste dump in n he made
perfectly clear that a total clean up of existing g sin sigle shell
..tank wastes at deNE and emplacing t h wastes into a geologic
wa stedry
to oohed NEVER happen - and that t this SIS on the defense
M8te9 in a sham.
The DOE'S Michael Lawrence is now play( point man for
Neared DoE, which been caught blatantly violating th e
NationalEnvironmental co mut
Policy Act. On July he released a
bland new computation of the volume of wastes u and a denial of
legal violation by claiming y is the
23.12 r
e rate of loading of the
repository, not its capacity , that is most important.-This
subterfuge does not arsons i strati ss
Appendix C of the Environmental w tae S
of rend -
DOE document - chows vividly how the $ecretery Secretary [y and Lawrence are
misleading the public and violating NEPA. That document estimates
that there
will u 0 metric tone Of high level aaste.£rom
spent nuclear plant fuel
rods root alone bythe year 2020. The maximum
legal load for a repository 19 0,, metric tons. Lawrence 3.3.5.7
admitahat there is already11,0000 metric tons at Hanford in
3
ti 3.3.1.11