EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

sP3
_
1
i
_
012 012
H
Governor Gardner rE,..Et.d that 1 express his regrets that he could
not be hee r personally to c m an, on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Cevel. Tra -
ranic and Tank Wastes. He .asked me to present his testimonySaMy .
is. s Cur tie Eschels T an Governor Gard... . spec al ..tent
erg, i 1 Chair the state of Washington Energy Facility
SitenEvaluati oxi Council, and I am a member of the state of
Washington Nuclear Waste Boartl.
Before I make comments, specific I will take a few moments to list
general criteria the U.S. mDepartment of Energ y (USDOE) should ua.
to reach Pa. si gns. The number one criterion must . be the prote,
n2. . lion Public. health antl the envir.x..ht. To meet this .11 innert
L 3 tact criterion, USDOF must:
3.3.5x4
2.4.1.1
2.2.3
2 .5.6
2.2.1
- USE state of-the-art technologies:
sumPly with appropriate
laws by I....no the .has.. of the
3954 Atomic Energy Het exclusions and moving into the
nahi ne of cu rent fEd ... 1 legislation. v
siosiger er but net allow c. to drive d.ci-
.za future releases, and
make su r cess. ' not politic , pre ail in the decision
-
making Pro
The cle cup of this 40 years act... I.tion of. wastes i .a,."
long-term challenge for USDOE antl the state gf Washington. This
Draft EIS is the beginning of along, difficult, and expensive.
task.
p I am Pleased that the citizensof this region have become no knowl-
2.3.2eg.8gamble about ehissue. edit the USDDE state
W h gt n information programs for providing information to the
citizens. I hope those information programs will continue even
though the Draft EIS .comment period will soon end..
The following specific comments are
made in the spirit of improving
this draftimpact statement. This three volume, 1,000 page in,
act v for the most part, clearlywritten no technicall y .... tl.
However, to make the final dums r t c 1 o d at" USDDE
must incorporake the followings
Chemical. Haz ortls
The scope of the DEIS.is too narrow The document does not adequately
deal with the hundreds of thousands of tons of chemical
3.1.6. 1 wastes ncluded i in tans wastes and dispersed in Hanford soils. The
naz anon of chemical contam i nation are no less. real and urgent then
RECEIVED DOE-RL
JUL 1989
-1- WMDIVISION
the bazar GS of radioactive materials. usoGE muse entory the
chemical contamination and each of 5pos.1 alternative ..at
specific s ally address chemical cantaminat i on.
Soil —B—liern
Th. Draft EIS appear. to make o .11yoptimistic P.,f....me c ...e -
ents for soil barriers. TM1e validity of the EI S is in Ja .... orif s 3. 5 . 1.57
the available literature has been Misrepresented. Barrier perfrmance
must be substantiated by previous Studies and actual experi-
Path.., and travel time calculations are mean ngless Until
barrier performance is substantiated.
i we
We aconcerned that the HSDOE emphasis on stabilization of tanle
onV to the Nuclear West. Policy Act "multiple Earner"
approach which requires stabilization of both the container and the 241 2.4. . 1
asks.. TM1e USDDE approach lead. to as a[knowl etlOPtl contaminat
of Hanford groundwater. Cents' nation of groundwater is ty rar ion
to Stain 1 In the final El UEDOE should nurse to omply con with
A.
.11 a p,ropnat. l te l ws to Protect public health and a a the en,
.....a s With th N t' n l Environmental P liC
Act
In the final
impact statement, USDDE must se pcifically identify the
impacts of "the" proposal as required by the National nv omen Eintal 2.4.1.17
Policy Act. Theo of "boundin g -a umptions" to crange of
impacts or It nat es is not a ..plaits. Delay. orecords of
dec will
um, a supple ..tar EIS with an
opportunity for citizen commentim
Th. draft Par .... t calls for a system t0 mark the boundary of the
actual died ... 1 sites. USDDE tlescribes what it calls 'actual di._
posal sites whi cn would c r 32 square miles. In ouropinion,
net all the 32 square miles must be off limits fora ys— only that
land that is retrievably contaminated by tlangrous wastes should
be written off. USDDE must establish a separate, public or ocesm to
condemn land prior to writing it off.
AbilityLo M-tIt or
2 a 5 a 7
USDDE must. in the final DIE, evaluate the impact of defense wastes
on the ability Y o monitor a proposed repository. This m nitoring
obvious is especially that important aconsideration in the of earlier a repository postclpsure requires years• the
It i in
2 aa 1 7/
possible cleanup sof defense wastes.
-y-
RECEIVEv DCE-RL
JUL 919W
WMDIVISION