EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

More documents

Recommendations

Info

N O 2.3,2.9. 2.5.5 2.2.13 2.5.5 DOE Richland Operations Office ATTN R.A. HOlten/E1S Waste Management Division Richland, WA 99352 RECEIVED DOE-RL JUL 22186 Q121 /~ WMDIViSIONp.1/4 l2, .121 6 July 1986 I am writing to express my opinion Concerning the DOE a draft Environmental impact Statement entitled 'Disposal of Hanford Derense Hfgn-Level, Transuranic, and Tank. Wastes (EIS), and "all raise Lee following points: 1) AN INDEPENDENT STUDY AND EIS IS NECESSARY. To respond to all the obleccons 1 have to the aiternaGves outlined in Me DOE. EIS would take more space tnan the EIS. Suffice it to say that! Cannot accept any data, probabilities, or conclusions presented in the EIS, since the EIS is researched and written by Lie same department wniclt has generated, carelessly stored, and must now try W clean up and dispose of the wastes. 1 believe pat no action should be taken on disposal of defense nuclear waste, until an INDEPENDENT agency can both examine the original data. critique the DOES EIS. erxiore other retrieval and disposal options and make recommendations as to hew the defense waste should be retrieved and - disposed It is unconscionable that there has been no independent study on wastes as hazardous and long-lived as the defense nuclear wastts. a) This nation was built on the ideal of Separation of powers: separation of Church and state, and separation of judicial; legislative, and executive bodies of government. How then can this same nation set one department, the DOE, with the Sisk of goner ttmg, monitoring, staring, and ultimately disposing of its own hazardous materials, This is clearly a conflict of interest. No matter hew noble the purpose and how Strong the desire for obie
3.3.5.4 3.3.4.2 2.5.6 121 RECEIVED DOE-RL duL 22 1986 d(ZI WM DIVISION P.,3(4 4) NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAXEN UNTIL SAFE TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE RETRIEVAL, PROCESSING; AND RETRIEVABLE STORAGE OF THE PRE-1970 DEFENSE WASTE ARE DEVELOPED. The defense department created this waste, and sho uld be held responsible for disposing of ALL its wastes in the same manner as that required of commercial nuclear reactors. It is clear that the DOE does not yet have the exper ti se to do this safely (see p. 1.8 & 1.17). a) Therefo r e, no ac ti on should be taken on the long-term disposal of the defense wastes until technologies can be developed to re tr ieve and package the pre-1970 waste in a manner suitable for deep geologic disposal, and should be retrievably stored for at least 50 years. b) Because the DOE cannot yet safely s tore me nuclear waste genera ted by Plutonium ezva-UOn, the N-Reactor and PUREX plant should be shut down and no new waste genera tod until such ti me as technologies for the packaging and disposing of me waste In the same manner as for commercial nuclear waste are developed. RECEIVED DOE-RL dUL 221986 Gtzl WM DIVISION PAM e) 1 know the BOB would li ke to argue Nat this IS9ue Is not relevant to me defense waste EIS, but I believe me two issues are inseparable. By set ting the precedent of 'm-place stabiliza tion' for the defense waste, they are pav in g the way to ex tract Plutonium from the spent commercial fuel at Hanford, thereby turning the more easily disposed of commercial waste into the same high-volume liq uid, sludge, and solid waste that the defense department cannot yet dispose of safely. If it can sweep 40 ye ar s accumulation of defense waste under a rug of con crete, as options 2 & 3 intend to do, it can just as easily sweep a ll the commer ci al waste under the same rug after it has been reprocessed to remove the plutonium and uranium, Whether for warheads or breeder fuel. --It is therefore imperative that commercial nuclear eastte not be s tored at Hanford, and that defense waste be subje ct to the seine disposal prac tices as are curren tl y requ ired for spent commercial fuel. Sincerely, 121 2.1.3, 3.3.2'.1 2.1.1 2.2.7 5) HANFORD:S INAPPROPRIATE AS WELL AS UNSUITABLE FOR STORAGE OF BOTH C.S. Weiler DEFENSE AND COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR WASTE Because plutonium iscurrentlya 224 N. Bellevue Ave. 2.13 . i•asto product of the commercial industry and the desired end product of the Walla Walla, WA 99362 b+ defense department. commercial fuel should under no circumstances be s tored at a C71 defense faci li ty. THEREFORE. HANFORD SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM •'' CONSIDERATION AS A REPOSITORY SITE FOR SPENT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR FUEL! To s to re the commercial waste at Hanford is yet another viola ti on of the separa ti on C: peWel'$ Jn WhIt11 tills na JJn pfldee !iB21f It also violates our 40 -year policy of separa ting Me peaceful and destruc ti ve uses of me atom and Is an open Invita ti on to other na ti ons to make weapons out of their commercial fue l . a i No government will believe we do not use spent commercial fuel for warheads "'hen a-^s rich pmtonmm resource is located in the middle of a defense fa cility, 2.1. 3 J ev.n If wt 11 11 not use it for warheads' There are sufficient non-defense sites 37all3bie if ne ticr. that th ere is no need t9 locate commercial waa to at the only defense faci lity in the en ti re na ti on that is reprocess ing spent fuel for warheads (unless the g5*efo:nent. mteu-9 5 to do so). The fact that th e DOE elevated Hanford from a low posi tion on Me list of available sites, passing over more suitable sites based on safety, supper Ls the no ti on that Hanford is being chosen as a commercial pluWmum-extrac tion site (either for bombs or breeder fue l) rather man a ,cmmercial N2ste s torage site b) What assurance call the DOE give the American ci tizens and me rest of the world that spent commercial fuel vnll not be processed in to plutonium for 2. 211.3 Wa:heads is the commercial waste is s to red at Hanford? I realize that there is legislation to prevent th is, but congress co uld change me legisla tion, and ' ever: 11 It does not. the DOE could pla ce a blanket of 'National Security' over the site a.i reprocess the spent commercial fuel wi thout permission. How can this be prevented it the commer ci a l waste is located on a defense site?
Page 1 and 2:
AR TARGET SHEET The following docum
Page 3:
COYER SHEET RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S
Page 6 and 7:
contained comments regarding its pr
Page 8 and 9:
'Tel, handling container; previousl
Page 10 and 11:
Comment Letter No. Reviewer Affilia
Page 12 and 13:
Comment Letter No. . Reviewer Affil
Page 14 and 15:
I Comment Letter No. Reviewer Affil
Page 16 and 17:
II Comment Letter No. Rev iewer Aff
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 25 and 26:
Processing of Written Continents 1.
Page 27 and 28:
s a 10 4 0 1 001 001 N MG? ], "86 R
Page 29 and 30:
Ea --Z -- 003 004 oea a.nn,om 4u'RR
Page 31 and 32:
,y I F 'S. on ^ g "' 4d '.+A 0 0®4
Page 33 and 34:
• t V RECEIVED DOE-RL 005 Mr. Ric
Page 35 and 36:
$ 3 006 007 doe/ too 7 `7 CITY OF K
Page 37 and 38:
J A ^^ $„ 3§ 009 010 /6 RECEIVED
Page 39 and 40:
Oil RECEIVEu DOE-RL JUL 8 10 012 De
Page 41 and 42:
C 8 4 K y CJl 3.3.2.1 Efiec[ an O[h
Page 43 and 44:
gg MW r 2. Comsenta on Lran Environ
Page 45 and 46:
9 015 016 U V/,9 00 i t. R.R. Mot H
Page 47 and 48:
€ - UK 0.1e 001f tt • 115 Locus
Page 49 and 50:
0 4 2 6 zL' 021 021 6c RECEIVED DOE
Page 51 and 52:
0 N U1 023 0"2 Letter in lien of as
Page 53 and 54:
024 025 RE CEIVED DDE -1l,,A C,^.1
Page 55 and 56:
"a 3 q 3 , a ^F sy 025 025 pers REC
Page 57 and 58:
02 7 1 s W U.S.0epartment of Energy
Page 59 and 60:
.j 2 a tN +1 \!i ^: J 031 2 .1. 1 I
Page 61 and 62:
033 033 31The vast majority of dual
Page 63 and 64:
m ®33 Fixing the Problumis) Year 1
Page 65 and 66:
1 035 036 RECEIVED DC' .. _ L 9d//f
Page 67 and 68:
fi ig ,- ^5 a m 1 Js W CO30 TTSalHO
Page 69 and 70:
k .^ ij is BE ' 3 Inland Empire Reg
Page 71 and 72:
£ 4 5 Yi l:I T g pD43 MQ'p ^TT EC
Page 73 and 74:
€ f^ »y § ^ o BE ME à:{ HE HON
Page 75 and 76:
0 4 044 4 CJl 1-^ 3 of." tcE'-iVED
Page 77 and 78:
ss. M 0044 J. RECEIVED DQE-RL JUL 1
Page 79 and 80:
am UK UT 2.3.2.9 2.2.7 2.1.1 REGLIV
Page 81 and 82:
sm UI 6641. RECENEU pUE-RL IUL 14 1
Page 83 and 84:
4 2 Ef. •. B91 Ln W 3.3.2.2 3 .3.
Page 85 and 86:
ME 04°7 TESTIMONY ON HANFORD N-WAS
Page 87 and 88:
E^g ^ d F k 1 f5 £"3 U:, 049 M W 2
Page 89 and 90:
c 049 049 0Cn 0040 RECEIVED DOE-RL
Page 91 and 92:
J M 051 V 2.5.6 page 2 Morgan July
Page 93 and 94:
z 052 053 RECEIVED, DO E-RL JUL 14
Page 95 and 96:
Im 053 3 RECEIVED DOEAL OREGON POSI
Page 97 and 98:
F f.. WC 053 3 .3.5.3 RECEIVED DOE-
Page 99 and 100:
055 d ll%7C a.vvâ- .;1c Fcw wa^sv
Page 101 and 102:
a f 8° 3 _A7 ej is M69 Sf M[SR1' O
Page 103 and 104:
05! ^9 Chairman, Subcommittee on Ge
Page 105 and 106:
05'7 057 Page Five RECEIVED DDE-RL
Page 107 and 108:
1 t 6 05'7 05'7 Page Nine RECEIVED
Page 109 and 110:
0 z 05'7 05'7 Page Thirteen RECEIVE
Page 111 and 112:
9 ra am BTi:rif ;.^.EiVc^ Cc-RL [oa
Page 113 and 114:
aw RECEIVED COE-RL JUL 1 A 1986 WM
Page 115 and 116:
El i 1 1 The OS ME moat ow0 up to t
Page 117 and 118:
.rte M OG1 A fiscal year 1988 budge
Page 119 and 120:
3 ^ a 4 9 a DI OG3 V v •F c N v L
Page 121 and 122:
111: 64 My League of Women Voters o
Page 123 and 124:
9- n, a y 067 M& E D ID t? Indeed,
Page 125 and 126:
$'a s r3 - 4 i S + 'n 0 ^_1a e d ^-
Page 127 and 128:
^.^' 0 7® 0170 RECE VEU DOE-RL REC
Page 129 and 130:
8 Is Page6 WH RECEIVED DOE.RL JUL 1
Page 131 and 132:
:l p 071 071 1— CD V 3.1.4.5 J 3.
Page 133 and 134: 0 72 1 2 0'72 H C) O ID ^/ Y AffAff
Page 135 and 136: i fr F ti 1 074 0'74 H RECEIVED DOE
Page 137 and 138: F a @ k ^Jg f' `f j ?y xt € 75 M
Page 139 and 140: 1 0 HAI 07'7 078 JUL 18 1986 0611 I
Page 141 and 142: € 78 wool N d 3.3.5.7 RECEIVED DO
Page 143 and 144: 2 A rim 0 # 5 x ME o1 _ Raebb Pat-W
Page 145 and 146: 081 RECEIVED DDE-RL JULIB1906 01 Co
Page 147 and 148: 4 7 mm 2.2..3 `7 „ u,/z', 3 o.,^.
Page 149 and 150: 1 u f¢^$y Y$ q{ 3a $ E 4 ^^ 4? Yq
Page 151 and 152: CIE M 086 S^nr . Le ^ / ^ `r'dtl2 H
Page 153 and 154: 1' _ k e .. §} ate¢ ,^ Ell N.=CEI
Page 155 and 156: M 1 t 2.3.1.14 3 .3.1.1 2.1.9 Mary
Page 157 and 158: t^ 092 093 Olympia, July 14. 19 Wa.
Page 159 and 160: 7 - Ej 09 _ - oog17 Q97 9052 39th A
Page 161 and 162: . '^ ,. ^ ^ std a 1':p 099 100 July
Page 163 and 164: n P F 1 102 103 I^ RECEIVED DOEAL .
Page 165 and 166: - 3 n fi ..i 0 ^ c 33441. -'2. 1 "
Page 167 and 168: ON Im \4k16 Sb 3 '^-6\ WA RECEIVED
Page 169 and 170: 4, Y^ EM 107 108 2 .1 WE has violat
Page 171 and 172: D k ^wT 1W IM RECEIVED DOERL keC FI
Page 173 and 174: 110 111 3.2.6.3 2.5.1 2.5.1 3.3.1.1
Page 175 and 176: e`4 ^ 3 fr8 ^^ k 3 xp U .,y1 Ill il
Page 177 and 178: M -15 RECEIVED DOE-RL JUt22 OSS aiM
Page 179 and 180: e RECEIVED DOE-RL JUL 22 1986 t0lb
Page 181 and 182: LM . . Hl V continue to cause. nur.
Page 183: a,1i 5 q.d 120 nu 3.5.5.28 3.3.2.1
Page 187 and 188: d ! d a 5 6 9_ :^v`s Im F_m FY "'L
Page 189 and 190: d m 125 s(fllEm61r Pap- TM Pabkc 1A
Page 191 and 192: x 8 ^ f ti r^ ' 3 ^ 4g L.';;., 2'7
Page 193 and 194: 3 .. g g jky Sw 6 128 Page 3 - RECE
Page 195 and 196: N a :. S 1 29 V N 2.5.5 2.2.14 2.2.
Page 197 and 198: •1 3 J ' ¢ I 6 130 1130 RECEIVED
Page 199 and 200: s Ì V t;1) 133 V OF Okk Dogln CmM
Page 201 and 202: _ y ou op } op o uopeaaua8 a ]nF a
Page 203 and 204: G 4 i `; F4 Y7 136 13'7 V 2.5.6 2.2
Page 205 and 206: 51 0 13 19 DO W F-' 3.3.3.1 Th9 Ove
Page 207 and 208: d 3 a. Hou MM NECE-0 !?OE-RL Holton
Page 209 and 210: 13 .4A RECEIVED DOE-RL 3.1.2.5 3.1.
Page 211 and 212: is 443 143 N W V 3.5.5.28 3.3.2.1 R
Page 213 and 214: fi e T i 8 # ^'^ ^ I^ 5 a x ?'2. ea
Page 215 and 216: 3%_ 3 —ie v^ F f ,lo1075-94 #,1 1
Page 217 and 218: 147 147 3.3:5,5 RECEPr--D rJOE-RL C
Page 219 and 220: M 11/7 '14'7 .,ÊccnAIZ23 ÔE-RL ou
Page 221 and 222: Es 14 M0 RECEIVED DCE-RL 3.1.3.26 3
Page 223 and 224: e"_4 a 2 Is 51 F-' LD ro N 4- 4-i C
show all

EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?