EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

'
_ j
L
..................
F^
Y
0
140
CHET ORLOFF NEI;!:VE L) WEAL
Portland. Oregon ?PZio
JuL a 51986
VIM DIVISION
July. 15, 1986
WASHINGTON STATE SENATE h
SENATOR AL BAUER
amp n.bct
July 21. 1986
Y
RE,ti,,L) 1.8E-RL
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
- Operations office JUL 251966
Waste Management Division 0 140
Richland, WA 99352
WM DIVISION
ATTENTION: R.A. Molten:
Mr. R. ep Hotten/EIS
O . . of Energy
Ric 6 Rd erat
hland Operations
P. 0. Box 550 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Richland, NA. 99352
This letter serves an my commentary on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the disposal of defense waste at Hanford.
Dear Mr. Holten:
I a n e nod that the Only opportunity for Public input on the
m c c
On behalf of Wfellow Oregonians, I Wish to add Own
of defense waste disposal is
my few words,
during the 120-da y. comment
the Environmental 2.3.2.7
2.1.1 expressing strong resistance against the receipt and period on Imp to Statement.
g g
Storage of
The problem with
the Public-comment time frame e tes to the failure
F, nuclear wastes, to the many and el Nvent words year have already
of the
impact statement to select an option for the disposal of defense
waste.
00
Instead, the.-statement merely lists four alternative. for
N
disposal. The final impact statement, whieb rs scheduled for
I full realize, have long studied the matter and being the
releasezn the summer Or fall of 1987 , . will select
an
brother of a nuclear physicist, the problem the peparterent of
option that
excludes a public-comment nefear feel it is extremely Shortour
nation face with the Problen of nuclear
sighted to take comments e on four options but not take comments o on
Energy and, Indeed ,
wastes. sre
The issue. of a
much great" than that with
the final option seellecc ted e implementation.
T you and your colleagues are facing and for which you must
public should
have the opportunity to ant on th e selected
arrive at an answer.
how
a
That issue being h we produce and conserve
Proposal the
Department of Ene rgy intends to put into effect.
energy in this country. However, is all of us h face an intense
regional problem and that is th no matter I wish to express nO'
I am also concerned about the rotorrelationship
belief
between defense
to you on.
wane s disposal and the commercial repository Prog ram. It appears
to that the two
2.1.3
s they arate
Very simply. f rom most (I'll admit. not all) available
re lat.d.
le evidence --
However, the
Department maintains a they ae are
r ra
thereby leaving
from the federal 9 overnment.
industry, Y ani public P insti-
it to the
public to decipher any pact decisions e program may have
2 . 1 . 1 continue it is readily apparent to the objective s that o
the other: I firmly e
believe the Departnt me should address these
continue to collect atti re nuclear wastes athe an the Ns on Reserve possible impacts in the Draft Statement.
is folly. Noe rs than that, it is Criminal
-- if not considered
So now, it will certainly be held so by future generations.
I do not believe Hanford is a suitable site for a high-level
uclear waste repository
I predict that should it be decided to build up, rather than curs drologic
be cause of its geologic and hy
ate o f Washi I
rt e
ref
tail, Hanford'§ storage a the federal government 9 will
zens of
State of Washi ngton uoono this
sensitive the
r e. cr ti
athe
if
have a crisis Of s o me,or all
marjor of
ositi p roportions its hands. I predict that
the
2.
Hanford 11 .
defense wastes are disposed
the amount of opposition to increased ed storage a
a repository, I
will grw to
would also oppose. disposal at their present site.
rate and to a level that will alarm even the West dedicated
t deer civil disobedience. oan nrd And I predict that should
It be decideded to add Nif o storage capability, ct
stances will soon. for ce ce. if not re;ui r
re, a reversal of that
decision.
Bhet r d
andomm.vxsrnm. Wcymm Meyn RWm pV.Lm o g
tlmmes, Y^eB oaNg
7o11MlzxvwWza
PN mF. Wmf.IMm Gflidi V WaHtrpIM v.
(aro))envaxi
Oaa` 9U.Uzb