EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

t 2 °=
(,_
01'7
Ha[doad Nuclear Handswat£oa
Page z
RECEIVED DOE-RL
JUL i 11986
WM DIVISION
2.5.5 £)pope iffc a[NOr t tY aW a not al o tk„ fa ty h0 £mx m n t
has enjoyed do the Pont N pvnitoring its en activities. The regain
of this grn£toring ere clear, with the gross contea nmtion of griendwater
on the Resdtvakion, exposure of workere to kcatanfnatal drinking
water. arc[ pour waste disposal/rtenagarent pea ntices as a result. The
future of the groundester aquifers, bordering and underlYiag the Cohmbin
River dreiirages as well as the river itself, demands net action be, taken
to prevent any further contakinatfon £ms taking place. The livability
Of the region and the emixmment need to be protect i fmn th e thavat
o£ radi anucleotides whose Calf-lives exrenal the Sffetige o£ irc[ividuals.
Pe urge pro to elrolhate this threat anal prevent any further wntsdnation (1)
of the regi on to protect what we [eve any Nut we will give as an in -
heritan de to cur [hildten. Tha,k ypu for your auppert and assisted+
fn. of the nest critical iseues you wi ll be faced with in tM futute.
Sfnc 1Y
Mcacan tinter kbrka Associati on
Hid{ohubia/UesUVtes Subsection
N
C) _ for: John E. Houses, Fragment
£Orion R. Stahl. CManien
Public Health and
_ ester n.° l ; ty Cnnnittee
JEU/bre
ornSeretor Rob Pacbmod
Report. Hark Hatfield
Govornor Vic Atfyeh
C yeesren ROU Rain
Senator Had Jetnstalt
Repteamtative Wayne Faahueh
(3)
RECEIVED DOE-RL
To: Rich Holing, E.ls.,
WM D IVISION
H.S.. 1#p't of 1WgBy, Richland Operation office,
P. 0. Box 550, Richland, WA, 99352
Input, re Hanford as radioactive waste
AL I 1 1966 July 9,1986
Owl
site, of Joseph I. Miller Jr. M.D.
My main input x111 concern the prose^ butng used in selecCfe d this site.
Fame three different angles, public information, and therefore opportunity
for meaningful involvement in the planning yrocess, has been inadepuate.
Until the public is fully informed, further consideration of Hanford should cease.
kbile potential icpacts on eater quality have been at least superficially
addressed, the public has not been informed of the direct connection between
eater they ard was, depending on far. drinking, with no risk from leakage
at Hanford. May have not Men told. that the deep wells. ftwo .which Portland
water drinkers care drinking. last February, are at risk be cause of Hanford,
both via the nearby Columbia River, and via uncharted deep aquifers. If 7OO.00o
People who must drink. this water whenever Bull Run worst Mcomes too turbid,
Russ, and sees told, that the safety of this water has a direct tie-in with
radioactive waste disposal at Hanford, they would rise up against a Hanford choice.
The people's power through Congressional veto. has Teen m zzled,through
/^
3 . 5 . 4
'I '(
2 ,y . y
lack of public information (as described above) concerning has many Oregonians -
have a life and death stake in whether Hanford is chosen. If the existing eater
(or possible suggestion)
source comectioneith Hanford were made known, it would Menge obvious
that ware people in Oregon (302 of nor population in this state), have e
stake in the Hanford selection process, than is the case in Hashin,ton state.
/^
3 . 5 .`4
This increased knowledge could pressure congress into giving Ore... equal
'I '(
Rawer, co that of Washington, re veto any choice of Hanford. 2 e. 1 1
.3
.3
(3)
Before any action is taken there should be nose scientific discussion
among all interested scientists of pertinent disciplines. I have not seen any
evidence that this her
of happened. The âapartment of Fnergy, which has a
2.5.5
conflict of intere st, aaems to heccorr^alling the exchange of scientific
information.
^ (
aesceccfvssy apbmictea,^"g4-(- '
M-^.
nicer E. M H.H. (retires ,0c . , 9
physician)
pnysihian ) seals E. azmnr Rd., gay ,n ,or 2HSs