EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

t^
092 093
Olympia, July 14.
19
Wa. R"C'(VLO DOE-RL
July 14, 86 Department of Energy
JUL 18 IM
dagy
WM DIVISION
Dear Sirst
If these protective barriers you mention are such good solutions
to caring for the nuclear waste, then use th is method to dispose
of the wastes in each state that Produces them.
RECEIVED DOE -RL Dberl.tt. La unstop
JUL 18 1986
Seattle,
S9BW6.
60q,6 ^OQ
WM DIVISION duly L„ 1986
W
Transporting wastes thousands of mile. across the country does
seem a very dangerous procedure. What are the safeguards?.
No more SNEAK attempts to route wastes through the state of
3.4, 2 , 2 Washington, such as the rods from Taiwan. And the Department
of Energy was going to .end these materials theough the state
of Washington without notifying usv
I fear that there will be eventual leakage of radioactive wastes
2 .1.1 through th e basalt rock at the Hanford area. Anything that jeopardises
the purity of the Columbia river is indeed dangerous.
Isn't there a type of rook. somewhere in the U.S. that is more
solid than the basalt of the Columbia river area?
3.3.5.2 1 don' t believe there are enough optima. The ones proposed
do seem skimpy.
2 . 2 . 1
Ye., it's time for a permanent solution. The forty-three years
would have surely been long enough to carefully study the enviro
u ant and its strengths and weaknesses at Hanford. I don't
feel that careful study has been made, and if not, start in now
to make. in-depth studies and KEEP THE PUBLIC. INPORNED.
Rich Rohm
U.S. Rapt. of Bnsryp
Riohl.d Operatims Oftina
P.O. Box 55D
Kchlar,C, We,
Rear Sire,
a... don't damp scalar acts at Henfo -e - 3.
Perb.Ps Nevada if me ot bar smear.
Hmzrard.
And, plaeme ead prodaatim a plutonium at 2.
Oar.. state a Vaebington is still b as ically
A virgin state - love help Lt stay that say ae lone
se we eon.
5.2
J
Sls((rsPlJ1
jj[(``^^{{
Respectfully, yours.
Cmm]N.te Ilewtetop
Go. Penes
(@s.) Bath Do ... rd
2016 E. State Ave.
Olympia, We- 98506