EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

t e
119
1Z0
Page 2
thing in a town that doesn't exist anymore.
The Impact statement gives a population report of the people in an
80-mile radius of Hanford. This is the danger distance from Chernobyl to
Kiev or Hanford to Walla Walla where
I live. 11 points out that we are
a low-population area, therefore eligible for risk. Low-population is
not No-population. The inclusion of this low-population report in
the same report stating a "presumed zero risk to public" of nuclear
wastes Is a contradiction in the report of itself.
The young people of the Northwest ask for safety for our future.
2 .2.1 The existing and future nuclear wastes must be neutr;Hzed.
The N-Reactor so like Chernobyl must close.
2 .5.6 Please avoid a mass exodus of people from the Northwest. We love
this area and wish to stay and raise our families here.
1--t
Ln Lisa Lyon.
CO
jU7 6 rd-/9kd^,
C&,qz LLl vx?, Gz
f =-IVED DOE-RL
DOE Richland Operations Office JUL 221936 O1a06 liJmy 1986
ATTN k A. HOIWn/EIS
Waste Management Division WM DIviSON pl/3
Richland, WA 99352
1 am wri ting W express my opinion concerning the DOE s draft Environmental
Impact S ta tement en titl ed' Disposal of Hanford Defense H1911-Level, Transuranic,
and Tank Wastes and Mash tc raise the following points:
1! THE DEPT. OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SHOULD RE REQUIRED TO
MEET AT LEAST THE M1141MUM SAFETY STANDARDS REQUIRED OF COMMERCIAL
REACTORS, BOTH FOR THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND THE DISPOSAL
OF NUCLEAR WASTES. I believe it is the responsibility of the United S ta res Federal
Government to protect its citizens Irom internal as well as external threats to their
health and well being. !therefore