06.01.2014 Views

EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

.:y<br />

1W<br />

um<br />

It t I Itil'I L1-. sass . 1 1: HG: A . 1V I'll LIJII 1,1 1 OLLG 61 .^ 1 I J<br />

ILLV.U'I LI: LY'i : I: VL: •I: JI 1'N: 'Mlle, i 1040 1, 11 1 . .<br />

page 2<br />

RECEIVED DOE-RL'<br />

JUL 221986<br />

WMDIVISION<br />

Page<br />

RECEIVE D DOER<br />

wuL221986 D!//<br />

WM DIVISION<br />

ti<br />

giving priority consideration to the protection of public health<br />

and our environment. on May 28th John Herrington, Secretary of<br />

Energy. announced that, if DOE has its way. further<br />

consideration of secondary repository site.. in the central and<br />

"'tern United States will be indefinitely postponed.<br />

It is particularly disturbing that the decision to<br />

Indefinitely postpone work on a second repository was based<br />

partially on.the Department of Energy assumption that defense<br />

waste in mingle-shell tanks at <strong>Hanford</strong> would not be placed in e<br />

repository.This implies that the Department of Energy has<br />

,3.3.6.7<br />

f .,.<br />

01<br />

O<br />

OO<br />

2 .1.O The Department's unilateral decision to e depend the second<br />

2 .2.14<br />

repodtocy siting program violate. both the intent and letter of<br />

the law. As a member of the Senate Environment and public Works<br />

Committee during 9 the 97th Con g rose, I was deeply 8y involved in<br />

developing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. I was<br />

responsible for including in the Act provisions that require the<br />

siting at A second repository and place A cap On the amount of<br />

waste disposed of in the first repository.. My intent ion was to<br />

ensure that the first repository site would not later become the<br />

already decided not to choose the option of disposing of<br />

<strong>Hanford</strong>' s existing defense Waste Ina repository. Under<br />

existing law, no more than 70,000 metric tons of high level<br />

..waste can be disposed of in the first repository. If <strong>Hanford</strong>'s<br />

existing defense wart. was added to commercial waste and other<br />

defense waste the combined total Weald exceed 80,000 metric<br />

tons. The Department'. ApParent opposition to building a ...Oud<br />

repository gives the impresion that the Department intends to<br />

leave <strong>Hanford</strong>'s defense waste where it 3s.<br />

i<br />

only repository in the nation.<br />

The Final Environmental Impact Statement must clarify this<br />

2.4.1.1<br />

The Department of Energy has neither the responsibility not<br />

the authority to decide whether or not to proceed with the<br />

:.lotion of A second repository.. As one of the Senators<br />

1.oOIv.d in dra Ring the Act., I can attest to the fact that the<br />

element. of the Act are I ... P ... his. : The airing of A second<br />

repository I. a key element that can not be removed without<br />

joupaxdizin g the entire Act. The Department of Energy must be<br />

requited to strictly comply with the law.<br />

issue and specifically address the impact of .inglo-shell tank<br />

waste disposal on the first repository. I am deeply concerned<br />

that the Department of Energy's illegal second repository<br />

decision will add pressure by the Department to statilize the<br />

single-swell tank ... to in place.<br />

Another issue of particular concern is that the Draft<br />

Environmental Impact Statement dose not adequately address the<br />

3.3.2.1<br />

13

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!