EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

13
.4A
RECEIVED DOE-RL
3.1.2.5
3.1.6.1
2.2.9
2..2.3
DO
(P
2.3.2.8
JUL 29 1986
WM DIVISION
stainless steel cylinders should continue to be stored in water
basins until a repository is available after which they should be
packaged and shipped to a future geologic repository.
Two other Oregon suggestions should be heeded: 1--DDE should
comply with federal and state requirements on chemical and lowlevel
waste handling; 2. Congress should be requested to
establish fundingperpetual basis for the disposal of
military waste eitheṙ .
ither in the Defense Department or Department of
Energy budget.
Summary
While the in-place stabilization and disposal alternative
and the reference alternative provide cheaper means of disposal
of defense nuclear waste than the geologic disposal alternative,
I am of the opinion that dollars don't count; safety does. Thus
the geologic disposal alternative should be preferred.
Additional comments:
The specific criticism of the DEIS by 'Washington State
should be answered forthrightly in the final EIS.
The question raised by Robert Alvarez in May and discussed
in variou letters since concerning criticism of the French
vitrification technique shouldbe answered in the final EIS.
While DOE has indicated in a communication of June 5 from R.D.
Prosser to Alvarez that the complete packagin g of vitrified HLW
would eliminate any danger of breakdown of glassified Haw, this
does not appear to be the final word.
DOE also should deal in the final EIS (as it did in
communication received by Forum members) with questions raised by
Washington State Senator Bailey concerning the capacity of the
first repository for all the Hanford nuclear waste.
I compliment Jerry White and all the other DOE staff .members
who have met with the Citizens Forum and have patiently responded
to all the questions,e of them quite barbed, from Forum
members or the public. I sam afraid that on occasion DOE has been
treated as public enemy no. l instead of as aresponsib le agency
doing its best to solve a problem that huge. in wartime 43 years
ago.
This personal report is written prior to the August meeting
of the Citizens Peru. in Seatt le. I reserve the right to amend
it if subsequent information seems to require it.
July 28, 1986
Rich Holter/EIS
U.5, Department of Energy k^w
Richland Operations offrne JUL 30 1986 C)4'^
P.O. Sax 550
Richland, Wash. 99352
1NM9ggSION
I received the announcement of your public hearing July 15, 1986
"to provide testimony on alternatives for permanent disposal of
defense wastes stored at Hanford". Unfortunatelymy meeting schedule
did not allow time for attendance nor verbal testimony at the
hearing. However, I am sending my comments for a serious review.
1) The above statement in quotes excerpted from the 'concerned
citizen' letter is flawed. It makes the Hanford site a foregone
conclusion and in essence says it is the only method of disposal
that is open for discussion. The Government selected the Hanford
site before much was known about nbcia Ge waste, radiation and
resultant damage to humans and the environment. Creation of jobs
often times obscures the desire to investigate the side effects
and, in this situation, it was true and still is, according to the
reports I read from the resident s. of the Tri-city area. These
are three factors. The fourth factor is the general apathy .which
existed 45 years Age and still exists today. It sets the stage
for powerful organizations like DOE to ride rough shad over everyone.
It is my suspicion that someone or a group is p ro fitting
by such actions.. Suspicions are directed to DOE personnel, the
administration or private interests.
2) If what I read in the paper, is only partly true, your organization
is hardly one to be trusted with such a critical decision.
The reports included DOE allowing the disposal of high radiation
waste Jol la low radiation site. The scuttling and destruction of
data that put Hanford at the top of the list rather than the
bottom, is unforgiveable. Where has honor, trust, and ethic
gone? DOE has massive jab to improve its public relations.
And there I make the assumption it wants to. The fact that the
letter states "defense wastes" (including hig h . and low radiation)
is all inclusive and is a strategy too often used of using
generic terms.
3) The Governor of the State of Washington is proposing a ballot
at the general election in the fall to get the citizen reaction.
I fully support it. At this point I am not aware of what influence
that will have when the decision is made, but it behooves
all of us who will become more outspoken on environmental issues
to speak out and convince the electorate to vote against nuclear
waste storage to Washington State. A talk of secession might
shock the other states that we do not intend to let the admini
s tration have its way.
2.5.5
2.5.5
2.1.1
3.3.1.1
J. Richard Nokes
July 21 1986