L.10.0 POLICY ISSUES
L.10.1 MISSION
No comments were submitted for this topic.
L.10.2 AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
No comments were submitted for this topic.
L.10.3 CREDIBILITY
Comment Number 0053.01
Carpenter, Tom
Comment Workers were often heavily criticized or publicly ridiculed in the press for being wrong. Hazards that today are publicly accepted and even embraced enthusiastically by regulators and it is hard to come here and listen and read the documents and have a whole lot of trust in the same set of folks who created the situation to now go out and propose scenarios for cleaning it up. I have a real problem with the same group of people who denied that there was ever a problem about ten years and five years and even three years ago now telling us that the risks for such and such a scenario was so much that explaining to us this alternative means this much money or that alternative means this many lives and I guess what I am trying to get to is I think the problem at the Hanford Site is not one of science, I think it is one of management.
Response An independent contractor was selected to assist DOE and Ecology in preparing this EIS and several independent assessments of the EIS have been performed to validate its results. The scope of the EIS is the remediation of the tank waste and cesium and strontium capsules, and the items mentioned in the comment are outside of this scope of the EIS; therefore, no change in the text of the document is warranted.
Comment Number 0053.04
Carpenter, Tom
Comment Why did it take over a month and a half for folks to be informed about these findings (regarding cesium on nearing toward the groundwater). So, again we have whistle blowers bringing information out about problems in the tank farms, about problems in management and I guess my bottom line is that I would like to see some meaningful management reform, some ethical folks with integrity in charge of doing whatever it is you're going to do out there, with whatever scenario you choose because the best laid plans can not be effectively implemented by incompetent folks. You can have a great plan but it won't work if your not honest, if your not accountable. So that is my concern and that is my comment for tonight.
Response DOE and Ecology know of no delay in informing the public of verified information concerning the cesium in the soil column. DOE and Ecology are continuously working to improve methods used to distribute information to the public.
Comment Number 0057.01
Garfield, John
Comment I would like to express appreciation for Ecology's involvement in this process over the last several years. Also, the other stakeholders for their influence. For the last 3 to 4 years, there has been an unfortunate headquarters involvement that skewed this process and made it much more complex than it needs to be.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the comment. The extensive involvement of Ecology and the stakeholders helped provide a higher quality document that addresses the concerns of the stakeholders.
Comment Number 0095.01
Stock, Sidney
Comment May be possible and so I would urge again those who work there to remember that your first responsibility is as a human being to yourself, to your families, to all of humanity and secondly to your job and so when it comes to making a judgement on my part with limited information I will continue, hopefully not forever, to trust what part of American and Physicians for Social Responsibility and the other public interest groups say in criticism of what goes on rather than the information that I am receiving from the government.
Response DOE and Ecology believe that the TWRS EIS was prepared using the best available data and methods of analysis. An important part of the NEPA process is the review of the Draft EIS by stakeholders, agencies, and Tribal Nations during the comment period. This review period provided interested parties with the opportunity to examine the assumptions, analyses, and conclusions in the draft document and the opportunity to provide input on how these issues and other concerns should be addressed in the Final EIS. This process improves the quality of the Final EIS and is crucial to the NEPA decision-making process.
Comment Number 0096.01
Zepetta, Barbara
Comment And for people in this room, not to have the actual documents, not to have the actual data in and, I mean, in an objective way, not a subjective way, it should not be a different consultant every time you do not get the right answer you get a different consultant. This is not a PR game and until we stop doing this as a PR game we are not going to reach any ... we are not going to get the facts to begin to get the solutions on them.
Response The purpose of the public comment period is to provide the public, agencies, and Tribal Nations with the documents and data. The Draft EIS and its supporting documents were released for public review and comment on April 12, 1996. During the 45-day public comment period which ended on May 28, 1996, these documents were available in the DOE Reading Rooms and Repositories in five cities in the Northwest. Among the documents available were the raw data and calculations used to describe the alternatives and assess impacts. This information was provided to allow any interested party with the documents necessary to assess the quality of the information that served as the basis of the EIS. Individuals requesting the EIS and supporting appendices were provided a copy. The document also was available on the Hanford Internet Homepage.
Volume One, Section 8.0 contains the names and qualifications of each individual author who was responsible for analysis presented in the EIS.
L.10.4 GOVERNMENT POLICY
No comments were submitted for this topic.
L.10.5 MISCELLANEOUS
Comment Number 0008.07
Evett, Donald E.
Comment In closing, you have prepared an excellent impact statement. It pleases me to know that progress is in the making to begin resolving the Tank Waste Remediation System at Hanford. I believe it is ever so important to place high value program actions on this system without unnecessary delays. I wish everyone in the Department of Energy success in this difficult venture.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the preference expressed in the comment and will take this preference and other public comments into consideration when making a final decision on remediating the TWRS waste. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0040.01 for a discussion of factors influencing the evaluation of alternatives.
Comment Number 0015.01
NRC
Comment The Nuclear Regulatory Commission currently does not have budgeted resources to do a proper review of the EIS at this time. Because incomplete EIS comments from NRC could set an improper precedence for any future licensing of the solidification operations, NRC will not issue comments on the TWRS EIS. NRC will, however, use the EIS, as appropriate, to support future reviews of TWRS solidification operations.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the receipt of the comment.
REFERENCES
10 CFR 1021. National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C.
40 CFR 1500-1508. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality. Code of Federal Regulations, as amended. 1995.
Aikens 1993. Aikens, M.C. Oregon Archaeology. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office. Portland, Oregon. 1993.
Boomer et al. 1993. Boomer, K.D., S.K. Baker, A.L. Boldt, J.D. Galbraith, J.S. Garfield, C.E. Golberg, B.A. Higley, L.J. Johnson, M.J. Kupfer, R.M. Marusich, R.J. Parazin, A.N. Praga, G.W. Reddick, E.J. Slaathaug, T.L. Waldo, and C.E. Worcester. Tank Waste Technical Options Report. WHC-EP-0616, Rev. 0. U.S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington. March 1993.
DeVoto 1953. DeVoto, B. The Journals of Lewis and Clark. The American Heritage Library, Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, Massachusetts. 1953.
DOE 1996a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Tank Waste Remediation System. DOE/EIS-0189D. U.S. Department of Energy and Washington State Department of Ecology. April 1996.
DOE 1996b. Plutonium Finishing Plant Stabilization Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0244-F. U.S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington. May 1996.
DOE 1996c. Draft Hanford Remedial Action Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Land Use Plan. DOE/EIS-0222D. U.S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington. August 1996.
DOE 1995c. Hanford Site Baseline Risk Assessment Methodology. DOE/RL-91-45, Rev. 3. U.S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington. 1995.
DOE 1995i. Safe Interim Storage of Hanford's Tank Waste Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0212. U.S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington. October 1995.
DOE 1994l. T Plant. U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Fact Sheet. RL-W94-030 5/94. U.S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington. May 1994.
DOE 1994m. Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement Public Scoping Meeting Transcript, Richland Washington. U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. February 1994.
DOE 1993d. Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. May 1993.
DOE 1987. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes Hanford Site Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0113. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. December 1987.
EPA 1989b. Exposure Factor Handbook. EPA/600/8-89/043. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 1989.
Gephart-Lundgren 1995. Gephart, R.E. and R.E. Lundgren. Hanford Tank Clean up: A Guide to Understanding the Technical Issues. PNL-10773. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. August 1995.
Gerber 1993. Gerber, M.S. The Hanford Site: An Anthology of Early Histories. WHC-MR-0435. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. October 1993.
Hanlon 1995. Hanlon, B.M. Waste Tank Summary for Month Ending December 31, 1994. WHC-EP-0182. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. February 1995.
Hunn 1990. Hunn, E.S. Nch'i-wana, The Big River. The Mid-Columbia Indians and Their Land. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. 1990.
Irving 1976. Irving, W. Astoria, or Anecdotes of an Enterprise (sic) Beyond the Rocky Mountains. University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln, Nebraska. 1976.
Napier et al. 1996. Napier, B.A., B.L. Harper, N.K. Lane, D.L. Strenge, and R.B. Spivey. Human Scenarios for the Screening Assessment, Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment. DOE/RL-96-16a, Rev. 0. U.S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington. 1996.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Public Laws 91-90, as amended. 42 USC 4321 et seq. 1969.
PNL 1996. Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1995. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. June 1996.
WAC 197-11. SEPA Rules. WAC 197-11. State of Washington. Olympia, Washington. February 1984.
WHC 1995a. Other Options Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-EV-106, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.
WHC 1995c. No Separations Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-103, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.
WHC 1995e. Extensive Separations Pretreatment Alternative Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-EV-100, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. September 1995.
WHC 1995f. In Situ Treatment and Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Hanford Site Underground Storage Tanks Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-101, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.
WHC 1995g. No Disposal Action Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-099, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.
WHC 1995h. Disposition of Cesium and Strontium Capsules Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-DP-087, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.
WHC 1995i. Closure Technical Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-107, Rev. B. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.
WHC 1995j. Tri-Party Agreement Alternative Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-104, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.
WHC 1995n. Waste Retrieval and Transfer Engineering Data Package for the TWRS EIS. WHC-SD-WM-EV-097, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.
WHC 1994i. Feasibility Study of Tank Leakage Mitigation Using Subsurface Barriers. WHC-SD-WM-ES-300, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. September 1994.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
