EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

e
RECEIVED DOE-RL
JUL 22 1986 t0lb
RECEIVED DOE-RL
EM
JUL 221986 B01b
3.5.1.57
2.4.1.1
2.4.1.17
2.5.7
thehatard. of radioactive materials. USDOE must i entorP"IVISION
chemi.[a1. contamination and each di svosal alternative must
specifically address chemical contamination.
Sour=
The Draft EIS appears to make o v erly optimistic performance assumeents
for soil barriers. The validity of the DID i. in j .... rdyif
the a ailable Iitarat are has been misrepresented, Barrier performancemust
v be substantioted by Previousstudies and . actual exper -
F'athway antl travel time cal cul ati gns are mean ngl ass until
N.-: ­ or by is substantiated.'
Comoli ante With 5a f e_^Lyp yr g
We Are enod that the USDOE emphasis o stab ilizatio. n o{ tanks
1. contrary to the Nuclear Waste Policy Pct multiple barrier"
approach which regwres stabilization of bath the container and the
USDOE .... h leads to
[
of sHanford groundwater. Contamination 04cgroundwater is contrary n
to I state Iaw. In the final EIS, USDOE should .0,.a to comply with
a3 appropriate state laws to protect public health and the environment.
Comp l iance Wi[h the National Env ironmental Policy Act
In the final impact statement. PEEPS net specifically identify the
,.pacts n4 "the" proposal as required by the National Env, run ... tel
Policy Act. The u of "boundinq assumptions" to cover a range of
impacts o 'a It atrves is net acceptable. Delayed records o4
decision will require, as
, supplemental EIS with an
opportunity for citizen comment. mu
The draft document calls for a system to mark the boundary of the
actual disposal sites. ISSUE describes what It calls "actual disposal
sites" which would cover 32 square miles. In or opinion,
not all the 32 square miles .must be off limits 4Prever.. Only that
land that is irretrievably contaminated by dangerous wastes should
be written off. 'USDOE must establish a Separate, public pr ... as to
condemn land prior to writing it off.
Ef{act an Other Degisions WM DIVISION
Health and safety ismue, must be the mclor factor in the cleanup of
defense wastes and indecision% leading to the selection of a site
for Beol odic disposal of high-level waetes. Fla. .11 indi c.tigna r
the decision to indefinitely postpone work on a second repository
was based, in part, on USDOE data which assumed single shell waetes
ou Id not go toa repe.i[ary. 1 4 the decision was influenced by
such an sumpti on, there will a re ly be added pressure by USDOE to
stabilize the single-shell tank Wastes in place. In addition, the
e of such data to make a decision on the second round repoaitory
raises serious questions about the validity of the geologic repository
alternative for single-ahell wastes. The spirit and intent of
the National Environmental Policy Pct requires consideration of
valid alternatives. The final EIS must clear up this confusion and
.,,at clearly D0r... the impact of single-oh.11 Wastes on the
design and construction of a reposltory--wherever it is built. The
final document must include specific information an the number of
canisters of glassified waste USDOE expects to extract from singleshell
tanks.
Cone ii I iDO i
In c nclusion, I support strongly USDOE's efforts tom veaheatl o
kev elements of the Hanford clea This includes ontld nine
research and preliminary design work: an the glassificat ion and
grot facilities. The state of Washington will work to forge a.
coalition to support cleanup funding,
The Washington State Nuclear Waste board will testify At the
Seattle meeting and the board will submit detailed comments on or
bebore the August 9 deadline.
Governor Gardner and I thank you for this opportunity to comment
2.2.3
3.3„2.1
2.1.7
3.;3.5.3
ability[o Monitor
2.1.7
USOOE must, in the final EIS, evaluate the : impact of defense wastes
on the atiility to monitor a proposed repository. This monitoring
especially important in the earlier postclosure years. It is
obvious that even con sideration of a repository requires the bast
po.si his cl..... .4: defense ...i.e. -