EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

M
1 t
2.3.1.14
3 .3.1.1
2.1.9
Mary V.-It lin And.'.-
6844 30th Avenue N.E.
6eattlq WA 9B115
July I5. 1986
Testimony on Nuclear Defense Waste
RECEIVED DDE-RL
JUL 18 1986 x4i
V/M DIVISION
TM1e forty year old accumulation of noel ur waste at Hanford
presents a n wooly difficult problem far which a eft
t echnalap 1 offer. no completely effective solution. urHowever,
this defense waste is cjust a mall part of the total nuclear
rite problem and cannot be considered separately. All
radfo.etive ..at.. are alike in their oang.roua potential,
whether their origin is weapon production or power plant
generation.
The Department of Energy's mistaken idea that we rid
ea lees of any of this deadly waste by burying it i
underground vaults is a carefully perpetrated myth. In fact,
burying the deadly garb.,. 1s really goat a form of storage,
the only open option at this time. Whether the material i
defense .mate or power plant waste, it will still be the,. far
the next 10,000 to 240,000 year .. .... ibly a ..Limp it. revs, ing
influence in ways that our most brilliant scientists have not
yet imagined.
Considering the violent geological history of this planet
and the lxk ensiva longevity of radioactive material, the plan to
bury nuclear wastes in underground repositories is 'absolutely
3.3.1.1 mniac. a 1. Even the moot carefully studied gaologi pa! site c n
ever provide the required; l0{000 years of guaranteed*
predictable s purity against major geological upheaval.
generation of deadly wat.. which will affect our planet
i
The Hanford site I. an entially forever -new w - having o difficulty
especially poor choice for
m
underground repository. Studies of the possible interaction
2.1.1 between some very hot waste and the basalt rock formation yield
vidence ofpoaslble calamitous problems. Future earthquake s .
could easily shattmr rock formations surrounding unding an underground
repository and could open up now channels for. groundwater under
pressures of as much as 1,00 0 . pound- per square inch. This
pressurized water Could begin ax,vin, through the waste vaults
and t .... d the .urface. According to U.S. Geological
Association Hydrologist 8111 Meyer, a yen without the
precipitating influence of an arthquake the p .... uris.d flow
of water in underground aquifer o may be pervasive or three
dimen... h.l. that f oving t ... Id the ..'face a well a
horizontally. Considering the potential of pressurizedat—,
the Hanford site . % proximity to the Columbia River Would further
emeeprbate an already catastrophic situation, possibly creating
a widespread nuclear wasteland in the Northwest.
RECEIVED DOE-RL
JUL 181988, &Oqo
VIM DIVISION
Becauo the Nevada and Texas sites or ... M' different but
equally serious problems, some type of aboveground monitored
retrievable storage syat.m t s to be a viable and safer
farm of storage than burial in mdeep underground repositories.
containment
Storing the wastes abovegr.und in specifically designed
fac111ti.. woultl enable m hita,ih, and control. that
would be impossible if the waste w oremoved from human control
by deep burial In rock formation.. eYA e lso. Monitored Retrievable
Stol.0...old be less ..penatve,. construction would be easier
construction antl woultl not Fequlre ..cliff.. of human lives • undergrountl
probably ..old, 1 1 could off., greater safety, and
it could be located anywhere, not Just in politically convenient
places such as Washington state.
The most important tl ante,. of this Plan. however,. is that
it .,form time to evaluate thoroughly the concept of underground
burial or even to develop new solutions:. TM1e Department of
Energy should then no longerfeel ...1.1l.d to declare Hanford,
Nevada, or Texas suitable sites for repa.ltori.a when the..
sites have not even been adequately studied. I strongly object
to this precipitous action which shows callous disregard for the
safety and .ell-being of Washington Otat. clk ;sane.
Although this monitored retrievable storage systam offers a
nably •an. disp ... I method, the really critical issue
amain- a ue threat to our entire planet. the continued
3.3.4.2
proliferation zofnuclear Weapons and power plants when there is
2.5.6
eatly no truly effective way to Fltl a or planet of the tleatlly
rites. The very future of our vulnerable planet depends upon
the r solution of thisissue. We continue to .proliferate the
storing the ..at. of just the past forty year.. What about the
next forty years? What about the next century? 'Does our
Manifest Deatlny" includ. the construction of Monitored
retrievable star.,. facilities from "tea to'ihini., sea". a sea
poe.Ibly shining due to radioactive ]um ineacencaP 01 a e to
convert our entire planet into. gigantic nuclear oe .story,
burying our hum.. .... along kith the daftlU ptl vewaakes
saw ... led uby Par failure to ... th at . on?
Currently there a ultimately. satisfying an
s to
the.. q ... ti.... - Untile arompletely n
affective ma a found
to rid our planet of atomic waste, our pursuit ofenergy from
the atom ui entirely i Even apart from the possibility of
literally burying ourselves in nuclear waste or destroying
ourselves by nuclear war, it I. probably just a matter of tim.
until we experien ce at least^ons American "Chernobyl Syndrome--
2.5.6