EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site
EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site
EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site
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