EIS-0113_Section_9 - Hanford Site

More documents

Recommendations

Info

D y M C oLf6 O 1994 date discussed in the DEIS, and that the deep geologic 1 3 .3.1.1 disposal option for high-level waste will be pursued in earnest. The time for action is now. AsDOE / 9 own 1980 assessment of long-sere risk. clearly warns: m if eventual retrieval (from tanks) of the waste for permament disposal is undertaken, the cost could well rise with the pa..age of years...Tbus, O 2 . 2.1 it may be more diYEieult, dangerous, and costiv to remove the waste in the future than it is now." (1) 3.3.1.2 The department's FY87 defense nuclear waste construction budget request of just under 119 scarcely compares with the department's $153 million construction budget request at Savannah River. The department'. Hanford menstruction budget I. "mainly to demonstrate 1n-place disposal of compromised single-shell HLW tanks. m (2) Statements like this are another sign that the department's intentions are already in place. To alleviate our concern. and to demonstrate good faith, we - want to ... a FY88 budget request for a pilot Hanford Waste p Vitrification Plant (HWVP). Since a vitrification plant is an essential component of both the DEIS reference alternap 3 ( 1 8 . J tive and the DEIS repository :alternative--the department would be prudent to begin construction of a pilot facility in 1987. The Northwest will not tolerate a 30-yeas struggle to fund such a facility as the state of South. Carolina was compelled to do. A minimum commitment of $40 million for design, engineering, and preliminary construction of a vitrification plant would provide a necessary sign of good faith by the department. 3.1.8.9 The plant'. similiariti.. be the existing Savannah River vitrification plant allow for an expedited construction schedule. 6.005 6 RECEIVED DOE-RL JUL 14 1986 WMDIV(S(o t4 664b Convetaely, to fund a grouting facility for surface disposal rather than a vitrification plant would be a clear indication . that the department is wadded to in-place. near-surface 2.2.1 disposal. it would offer a clear sign that coat .... iderations are placed above the long-term protection of public health and the environment in the department'. plane. Finally, we . seek a pledge from the department to stick to. its commitment to produce a final EIS by mid-1987. We do not want to see the department's. doors elan shut after a 2 . 2 . 1 brief exposure to public scrutiny. The 'momentum for cleanup L action and the public expectation for such are-simply too great to become lost in the bowels of the DS Department of Energy. Porty years is long enough to wait.. REFERENCES RECEIVED DOE-RL JUL 1 a 19M WM DIVISION 604& 1. Rockwell Sanford Operation., He A..es.ment of the Risks As...I.ed With Continued Stoxaa wig ^v.T -Ie H in Single-She Tan a at Hanfor , May 980. 2. U.S. Department of Energy, COn r...'onal Hud et Ae nest Atomic Defense A...— ee n vo ..I, pp. 563 DOL/MA-00 5'rl 4,Fe ruaxy 1386. RECEIVED DOE-RL JUL 14 pas o46 WM DIVISION
ME 04°7 TESTIMONY ON HANFORD N-WASTE y/li/eB poy7 RECEIVED DOE-RL JUL 141986 BARBARA LA MOHTiCELLA WM DIVISION 4047 HAMM N-WASTE TESTIMONY BARBARA LA MORTICELLA ooY. RECEIVEu DOE-RL JUL 141986 July 11, 1984VMDIVISION PAGE 2 W47 Cn A few years ago,. Tread in the Oregonian that radioactive rabbit droppings and pocket gopher based badbeen found 10 miles from the Hanford site, and a radioactive eagle's .eat 25 miles from the site. Parts of a livin g system cannot be isolated from other parts. Although Chernobyl is very far away from Portland, rainwater in Portland was one of the first places in the U.S. where radiation from Chernobyl was measured:, It is appropriate that radiation showed up in this region first, for the Northwest has already played a . .large role in this country's nuclear. development.. QJ One legacy of that role is the Hanford N-Plant, the oldest plant is the country. Like Chernobyl, it is a 41 graphite reactor. But while Chernob yl did have a contain- 'N meat building, Hanford has none, and is built to withstand only 1/5 as much pressure as the Chernobyl pia twas. l The Ranford design is obsolete and dangerous, butKOORtiuues''tb .peratfec- M^ 4 The pur.. plutonium plant is another legacy,.... of the major sources of plut.niem for U.S. nuclear bombs. Willi am Lawless, a former engineer and waste manager foe U.S. Department of Energy, says that the soil of the Danford reservation poses the most serious plutonium contmina- Lion problem ofany sit e. In the nation. 2 Today the Puiex O pi pt routinely dischar ges about 7.5 time. more plutonium (:1 than the infamous Rocky Plants plutonium pla.t. 3 The soil throughout the Hanford site contains more plutonium per C O square acre, 84 mca., than the city of Nagasaki, lees than a mile from ground zero, immediately after it was bombed. And plutonium levels in the soil in the cities of Richland and Sunnyside approach Nagasaki's.4 A Pew years ago, Russia - stopped releasing the etatistiew for life expectancy and infant. mortality, for those figures had begun worsening. Last year when Dr. Carl Johnson, one of the fathers of .nuclear ..fence, was in Portland, I asked him what seams a. wild question-- whether it was possible that the drop in Soviet life expectancy could be related to the accident at Kyshtym. He replied that yea, it was passible. Premature ag ing is one of the little-known side effects of radiation exposure that have been revealed I. a few studies which were abruptly discontinued, end then buried from public view. 10-20 years would be about the right amount of time for this side effect to begin to surface. The U.S.S.R. has no public hearings like this one, no lengthy intervention processes of the kinds which the U.S. aucle ar industry bemoans. Russia, then, Ys two major public disasters ahead of us. But we have our potential Chernobyl, at Hanford. We have or potential Kyshtym, at Hanford. We also have a free press. A few months a go, the following story app..f.d in the Oregonian: I. the late 40 1 s; the goverment was trying to devise ways to measure radioactive fallout in the Soviet Union in order to monitor their nvelse, blasts. Measuring the radioactive dust in the holes of Russian bowling balls was Put forth was one option. 5,5000 curies of 1-I31, a thousand times the contamination released during the Three-Mile Island accident, were purposely discharged into the air of the Northwest to test U.S. measuring devices. y Presumably the plan was for undercover agents to haunt the howling alleys in Richland Spokane and Seattle, furtively holding geiger counters over .bowling bells. This plan was abandoned who p .....a. recollected that the Russians do out bowl, 0 O 0 3CID Q fD C+ D d There I. another parallel. The U.S.S.R. hoe had not one, b'dt two major nuclear accidents: at Chernobyl, and One in 1958 at a remote nuclear waste site sad plutonium plant „, xvshtmn. in the Orel Mountains. At Kyshtym, as at several huudreg thousand square all.. of land permanently uninhabitable. And a Russian defector who had been an en gi near supervising construction at Kyshtym told Science Magazine in '83 that that plant was an exact, pipe-by-pipe copy of the acres pinnt.6 Net Pure. goes on, day after day, producing weapons-grade plutonium. The story would be funny, except that that radiation really was released over the Northwest. We don't know where the government finally chose to measure it: on cars in parking lots, in Playgrounds, on cow's udders or horse 'e manes. And we don't knew what the health effects of this experiment were sad 'are, bananas . pull-scale, independent health study hasnever been funded. The story isn't funny, either, because it still goes on. More than 40 lbs.. of pure plutonium were scheduled to go up in the next rocket launch after Challenger, enough to
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: 4 2 Ef. •. B91 Ln W 3.3.2.2 3 .3.
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 and 184:
a,1i 5 q.d 120 nu 3.5.5.28 3.3.2.1
Page 185 and 186:
3.3.5.4 3.3.4.2 2.5.6 121 RECEIVED
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?