L.9.0 NEPA-RELATED COMMENTS
L.9.1 EIS PRESENTATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Comment Number 0042.02
EPA
Comment EPA has authorized the Washington State Department of Ecology to be the single regulatory authority for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements on the Hanford Site. Although the formal public comment period began on April 12, 1996, copies of the draft EIS were not received by our Environmental Review Program office in Seattle until May 10, 1996, 30 days into the 45-day comment period. Therefore, we will not be conducting a detailed review of this Draft EIS. However, based on our previous endorsement of the single regulatory authority approach and the extensive involvement of Ecology as a co-preparer of this Draft EIS, we do not foresee having any critical environmental objections to the proposed project.
Response DOE submitted five copies of the Draft EIS to EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. on April 5, 1996. Subsequently, copies were requested by EPA Region X for purposes of review and an additional five copies were sent to EPA Region X on the day the request was received by DOE. After the EIS had been received by EPA, DOE and Ecology met with EPA staff to facilitate the EIS review. DOE and Ecology informed EPA that the agencies would provide whatever support was necessary to ensure a timely and complete review of the EIS. EPA Region X subsequently informed DOE and Ecology that the agency would not be conducting a detailed review of the EIS. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0007.01 and 0044.01 for information related to this comment.
L.9.2 CLOSURE
Comment Number 0012.12
ODOE
Comment This EIS does not govern closure of the tanks and tank farms. This is appropriate. Decisions on closure of tanks and tank farms and what to do about leaked tank waste must be the subject of a separate EIS.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the comment and provide a discussion that supports the comment in Volume One, Section 3.3 on pages 3-18 to 3-20 of the Draft EIS. Please also refer to the response to Comment numbers 0005.17, 0019.03, 0072.08, and 0101.06 for a discussion of the relationship between the TWRS EIS scope and closure of the tanks.
L.9.3 SCOPE
Comment Number 0010.01
GRAY*STAR
Comment One page B-25 is the following paragraph:
DOE is pursuing alternative uses for the cesium and strontium capsules, however, no acceptable uses have been found. If no future uses for these capsules are found, the capsules eventually would be designated as HLW and managed and disposed of consistent with the TWRS EIS alternative selected for implementation.
As outlined in the attached "Privatization of Isotope Activities: GRAY*STAR, Inc. Expression of Interest, May 28, 1996", we believe that there is an alternative and driving use for the cesium and ultimately the strontium capsules. Further, we believe that there is an immediate need for ALL of the Cesium-137 at ALL of the government laboratories.
If a plan similar to that outlined in the enclosed Expression of Interest is put into effect, there will be several immediate and long range benefits, which include but are not limited to:
- No need to "bury" the HLW. This would lead to a cost avoidance by the United States taxpayers in the billions of dollars as outlined in the EIS. It would also avoid overall impact to the environment. Or, at worst, allow more room at a repository for other (perhaps civilian) waste.
- The immediate savings on the WESF building would be approximately $10,000,000 per year with a total cost savings from $112,000,000 to $697,000,000 as outlined in the EIS.
- The 100 jobs outlined for the WESF building would be reduced and privatized.
- The tank Remediation would be simplified (thus savings in both costs and environmental impact), because of the simplification of dealing with the wastes after the HLW is removed. (For example, the HLW could be removed from the tanks prior to full TWRS implementation. This would be similar to the project which produced the existing WESF material.)
- The process could be sped up which would lead to some cost savings and major savings on environmental damage.
- There would be no legacy of stored DOE HLW in the future, either in 100 years, 1,000 years or 1,000,000,0000 years.
- The GRAY*STAR will reduce worldwide food borne disease.
- The GRAY*STAR will open up phytosanitary restrictions and allow for greater trade between nations.
- The GRAY*STAR will allow the reduction/elimination of post harvest fumigants which are harmful to both health and the environment.
- The manufacture of GRAY*STAR units will lead to an expansion in heavy steel fabrication orders, helping the economy.
In summary, there is an immediate use for the existing cesium and perhaps strontium capsules now stored in the WESF building. This use will result in major cost savings, both monetary and environmental. This use extends to all of the cesium, and perhaps strontium, which is still in the 177 tanks as well as the MUSTs. Therefore, the impacts as outlined in the EIS could be further significantly reduced.
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 cesium and strontium capsules. The TWRS EIS addresses the management and disposal of the capsules. Analysis of potential beneficial users of the capsules is outside of the scope of the EIS. However, the information will support DOE's decision regarding the designation of the capsules to be available for disposal. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0006.01.
Comment Number 0012.11
ODOE
Comment Treatment of the Hanford tank wastes was the subject of an extensive Tri-Party public involvement process two years ago associated with a proposal by USDOE called Tank Waste Remediation System Rebaselining. The Tri-Parties also formed the Tank Waste Task Force at that time to discuss these issues. The public overwhelmingly rejected USDOE's plans to place the low-activity waste from tanks in a grout waste form in favor of vitrifying the waste. All of the public comment from that process is directly applicable to this EIS and should be included in this EIS.
Response In Volume One, Section 1.1, DOE and Ecology acknowledged the important role of the Tank Waste Task Force in considering the revised technical strategy for TWRS and the extensive public involvement process associated with the renegotiation of the Tri-Party Agreement in January 1994. The Draft EIS also stated that one of the major developments since the 1988 Hanford Defense Waste EIS ROD was the termination of the planned low-activity grout project in response to public concerns. Grout was considered in the EIS as an available immobilization technology and addressed in Volume Two, Appendix B. However, it is important to note that the current TWRS planning basis, the Tri-Party Agreement, and the preferred alternative all specify that the LAW, as well as the HLW, will be immobilized with the assumed waste form being a vitrified glass. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0035.04, 0036.13, 0038.01, 0038.05, 0038.10, 0052.01, 0055.03, and 0072.05.
DOE and Ecology considered the values and recommendations of the Tank Waste Task Force in developing the TWRS EIS alternatives. Within the EIS, DOE and Ecology have incorporated the role of the Tank Waste Task Force into the TWRS program and amended Tri-Party Agreement technical strategy and, ultimately into the identification of the preferred alternative. Because the information contained in the Draft EIS is correct, no change to the text was made.
Comment Number 0055.03
Martin, Todd
Comment Second, our second bullet is the TWRS EIS is not responsive to public concerns and here primarily we are referring to the Tank Waste Task Force. Two years ago when we finished up the Task Force, we said call this a NEPA equivalent and let us get on with it. Unfortunately, DOE and Ecology decided to do this EIS. We said okay, that is maybe alright, but what you should do is just look at flushing out the impacts of the preferred alternative. That has not happened. What we have got is a behemoth of a document that analyzes every possible alternative.
Response The Tank Waste Task Force identified several "principles" to guide the Tri-Party Agreement negotiations. These principles were defined as "values that should be applied to the overall agreement." During scoping for the TWRS EIS, individual commentors did support the concept that the Tank Waste Task Force and Tri-Party Agreement serve as "NEPA equivalent" activities. However, the Tank Waste Task Force Report specifically states that the Tri-Party Agreement should not be used as a "shield against enforcement of other laws." NEPA and SEPA are both environmental laws that apply to the proposed tank waste action. Neither statute allows the Tank Waste Task Force report to be used as an EIS. Therefore, DOE believes that an EIS was required to support the decisions related to TWRS proposed action, and that the EIS complies with the Task Force value of not using the Tri-Party Agreement to shield enforcement of other laws. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0034.05 for a related discussion.
Prior to initiating the impact analysis in the EIS, DOE and Ecology reviewed the Tank Waste Task Force Report to ensure that the EIS incorporated the issues of concern identified by stakeholders. Ten items were identified in the Tank Waste Task Force Final Report regarding impacts to the environment, including worker and public health safety and protection of the Columbia River. The TWRS EIS incorporates all of the areas of concern identified by the Task Force into its analysis of potential environmental impacts. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0012.11.
The TWRS EIS achieves the value of "getting on with the cleanup" by combining Federal and State environmental impact analyses into one process. DOE and Ecology are co-preparing the EIS to meet NEPA and SEPA requirements, and thereby reducing "paperwork, analytic, and decision-making redundancy."
Finally, in order to comply with NEPA, DOE was required to do more than "flushing out the impacts of the preferred alternative." First, NEPA requires that all EISs compare the impacts of the proposed action to a No Action alternative. Second, NEPA requires that an EIS 1) "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives," 2) "devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered, including the proposed action, so that reviewers may evaluate all comparative merits," and 3) include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency." These requirements can be found in 40 CFR 1502.14.
Comment Number 0063.01
Donovan, Virgil
Comment This is kind of the way the government works, and Hanford is not above this. There are contractors down there that even that you see at that time would get in bed with them a little bit, and like to see those contracts continue and get bigger for the community, and one thing or another. We see the same thing happening now with Doc Hastings. He wants to convert the Fast Flux Test Reactor to a tritium production plant. Then he wants to follow that up with a bigger tritium production plant. Tritium was used in the bomb because it was cheaper than diterium, which was a much safer material we used to use in the bomb in the warhead. It didn't bother them a bit to make that change. In fact is was a good place to hide the fact that we produced tritium in any reactor, and so we have a certain amount of it we have to dispose of. Well that gave us a good reason to have a bigger stockpile. We had lots of military contractors out there who'd like that, and I'd hate to see it happen again. I don't want us to produce tritium.
Response The production of tritium and future uses of the FFTF are not within the scope of this EIS; therefore, no modification to the text is warranted.
Comment Number 0063.02
Donovan, Virgil
Comment And I think we should be very damn careful about how the politicians get into this, and how much we believe, and how much we believe of the government agencies. Let's keep them at the point, what we're supposed to be looking for here. Clean this plant up. And let's not get into the side issues of building more tritium, which is not needed, or something else to continue operations at Hanford.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the preferences expressed in the comment and share the desire to move forward with remediation at the earliest possible date. Because issues associated with the production of tritium are outside the scope of this EIS, no change to the EIS is warranted.
Comment Number 0067.01
Browning, Joe
Comment I think that the public should take into consideration of a new energy system that would bring energy, or nuclear energy to stop radiation leaks into rivers, land, and air would stop. The energy system is not nuclear power of any sort. It will out produce a nuclear facility, and produce a new system of energy sources throughout. The DOE has wanted to only take this into consideration for talks and technical review. In other words, nothing will ever happen. They will tell the public, such as tonight through Hanford cleanup, that we don't need any more Hanford cleanup because we don't need any more nuclear waste coming into Hanford. All nuclear facilities will basically consider, through this new energy system, would be stopped. The public is not made aware of a new system that will out-produce a nuclear facility, and put a halt to nuclear problems.
Response The scope of the EIS is to evaluate alternatives for the remediation of the tank waste and cesium and strontium capsules. The topics identified in the comment are not within the scope of the EIS; therefore, no change to the EIS is warranted.
Comment Number 0072.09
CTUIR
Comment Both of these critical issues (characterization deficiencies and lack of closure coverage) point to a lack of an overarching programmatic structure, linked to long-term goals, that is framed with a single guiding and truly comprehensive decision document. The current EIS focuses on retrieval as an isolated event that excludes critical assumptions and limiting factors that cannot be separated from preceding, subsequent, successive, incremental, and cumulative actions. The CTUIR SSRP must remain informed about each of these factors which have the potential to result in direct impacts to tribal interests.
Response Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0012.14 and 0072.07 for discussions regarding characterization of tank waste. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.08 for the reasons for not including closure in this EIS. DOE and Ecology remain committed to open communication and consultation with the CTUIR on all issues potentially affecting Tribal Nation interests. The TWRS EIS addresses the cumulative impacts of past tank waste leaks, the TWRS alternatives, and other related, planned and reasonably foreseeable actions at the Hanford Site in Volume One, Section 5.13. Because the analysis requested in the comment is not within the scope of the EIS, no modification to the document is warranted. Please also refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.198 and 0072.252.
Comment Number 0072.46
CTUIR
Comment Since the Hanford Barrier is an integral part of this EIS, along with the potentially tremendous adverse ecological and cultural impacts of mining the fill and cap materials, will this EIS be used post hoc to claim that this aspect of closure was pre-approved? The CTUIR can not endorse the Hanford Barrier as part of closure; nor can the CTUIR endorse closure of tanks as a landfill.
Response The TWRS EIS or the ROD will not be used as an evaluation of closure alternatives, including use of the Hanford Barriers. Closure, use of the Hanford Barrier, and the selection of sites for earthen borrow material will be addressed in a future NEPA analysis. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0019.03, 0019.04, 0072.08, 0089.04, and 0101.06 for discussions of closure and borrow sites.
Comment Number 0072.47
CTUIR
Comment Contaminated soil is not included. Making a statement that contaminated soil and groundwater are not included does not excuse DOE from making decision based on the complete source term. The insertion of subsurface and groundwater data has implications that point to closure decisions.
Response Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0019.03, 0072.07, 0072.08 and 0101.06 for a discussion of the reasons closure, including releases from past practice activities, are not included in this EIS, but will be addressed in future NEPA analysis. Additional NEPA evaluations of the environmental impacts associated with closure, such as potential impacts to habitat cultural resources, human health, and cumulative impacts, would be analyzed. Volume One, Section 5.13 of this EIS discusses the cumulative impacts associated with TWRS and other Hanford Site projects. A discussion of emerging vadose zone contamination data is provided in Volume One, Section 4.2 and Volume Five, Appendix K. Because the information requested in the comment was included in the Draft EIS, no modification to the document is warranted.
Comment Number 0072.48
CTUIR
Comment Contribution of tank waste + soil + gw + all other 200 Area hazardous materials/waste constitute the 200 Area aggregate source term. What apportionment has been considered among these sources relative to the total Hanford long-term and accident risks? The ultimate decision must be based on all sources of risk.
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. Volume One, Section 5.13 of the EIS, Cumulative Impacts, assesses the cumulative impacts of TWRS and other Hanford projects. Because the information requested in the comment was included in the Draft EIS, no modification to the document is warranted. However, closure, which includes soil and groundwater contamination from past tank leaks and past-practice sites outside of the tank farms, is beyond the scope of the TWRS EIS. These issues will be addressed in future NEPA analysis for closure, or future CERCLA actions, for past-practice sites in the 200 Areas.
Comment Number 0072.49
CTUIR
Comment The risks are estimated due to new groundwater contamination and do not include existing groundwater contamination, new contamination as the contaminated soil leaches, nor any other new source of groundwater contamination (from ERDF, US Ecology, other 200 Area materials). This is a serious flaw in the way that source terms at Hanford are estimated - the Record of Decision must "apportion" the risks among all existing and future sources.
Response Please refer to Volume One, Section 5.13, Cumulative Impacts and Appendix F, which assesses the cumulative impacts of TWRS and other Hanford projects and existing contamination using the best available information. The Environmental Restoration and Disposal Facility (ERDF), US Ecology, other 200 Areas impacts, and TWRS impacts were presented in this section as well. Because the information requested in the comment was included in the Draft EIS, no modification to the document is warranted. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0012.15, 0030.02, 0040.06, 0072.08, 0072.47, 0091.01, 0098.04, and 0101.05 for related discussions.
Comment Number 0074.02
Shims, Lynn
Comment I wanted to formally also offer some kind words to the Department of Energy who have worked very hard on this and working hard to change their image. Because I heard today that to replace the monies lost by the gasoline tax revenues that there had been a proposal again to replace your whole department. And it must be very difficult to work on these gray issues and not get enough respect like that. And I'm also very mad about the fact that here we are smack up against the cold war mortgage legacy to us, given to us by the Department of Defense, who get's more money than they ask for in their budgets, and we're left kind of like the garbage men picking up after them all over the world right here in our own backyards because they have to have enough money to fight a war on two fronts. And I wonder if we're one of the fronts that their fighting against, or that they don't care about our own homeland. And that's a persistent problem.
Response Funding of the DOE and its programs from Congress, the relative merits of funding DOE programs compared to other agencies, or national priorities are not included in the scope of this EIS; therefore, no change to the text of the EIS is warranted. Please refer to the response to Comment 0014.04 for a discussion of funding issues.
Comment Number 0075.02
Wright, Peter
Comment And I just want to thank you very much, and I hope you get all the funding you need because we do need, as that woman said, a lot more money to clean it up than we do to continue making the messes.
Response DOE and Ecology support the desire to obtain the necessary funding to complete the project. Funding of the DOE and its programs is not included in the scope of this EIS. The EIS presents data regarding the potential costs of the alternatives analyzed in the EIS to assist the public and decision makers in the consideration of the alternatives. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0014.04 and 0074.02.
Comment Number 0076.04
Blazek, Mary Lou
Comment Although we support the preferred alternative, it will not resolve all the issues related to the high-level waste at Hanford. We believe there will continue to be a need for ongoing monitoring, characterization, and pumping and treating of groundwater contamination caused by waste, which has leaked and migrated from the tanks. We will continue to support fast, speedy, and cost-effective cleanup at Hanford. We believe the preferred alternative is a step in that direction. Thank you.
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. The monitoring, characterization, and remediation of the groundwater caused by past practice activities is not within the scope of this EIS, but remains a concern of DOE and Ecology and will be addressed in a future NEPA analysis. The TWRS EIS discusses, to the extent practicable, the relationship between the tank waste remediation alternatives and future Hanford Site cleanup decisions. Please refer to responses to Comment numbers 0040.06, 0072.07, and 0101.05 and the Volume One, Section 5.13 discussion of cumulative impacts.
Comment Number 0078.01
ODOE (Exhibit)
Comment A year after this process and negotiations ended USDOE changed course. USDOE began a program to reduce costs and privatize the tank waste program. In the process, they laid off the workers that were key to the program. In the process, they laid off the workers that were key to the program for designing and building the glass plants. The plant was to convince private companies to submit bids for and then build plants to convert the tank waste to glass. That would be cheaper and faster than USDOE could do.
Many stakeholders, including Oregon, expressed reservations about USDOEs ability to succeed at privatization.
Response Privatization is discussed in Volume One, Section 3.3 and is simply a contracting mechanism, which is beyond the scope of this EIS. Under this concept, DOE would competitively bid a portion of the remediation work instead of having the Site Management and Operations contractor perform the work. Equivalent requirements for retrieval, treatment, and disposal of the waste would apply regardless of how DOE contracts to perform the remediation. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0079.06 and 0088.05.
Comment Number 0078.05
ODOE (Exhibit)
Comment This EIS makes no decisions about what to do with the tanks or leaked tank waste. This is deferred to a later Environmental Impact Statement. Decisions about the fate of the tanks and leaked waste must be based on a thorough understanding of the fate of this waste. Modeling alone is insufficient. USDOE must begin now a program to determine the fate of all of the waste leaked from the tanks, cribs, trenches, reverse wells, and other disposal facilities.
Response The remediation of leaks and releases during past practice activities are part of tank farm closure and are not within the scope of this EIS. However, DOE has a program to monitor and characterize these releases and will address remediation of these releases in a future NEPA analysis. Volume One, Section 5.13 and Appendix F contain a description of the potential cumulative impacts of tank waste remediation with other Site activities and past practice releases using the best available data. Please also refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0012.15, 0030.02, 0072.08, 0072.47, 0076.04, 0091.01, and 0098.04.
Comment Number 0078.06
ODOE (Exhibit)
Comment The comprehensive impact of disposed and leaked wastes on the groundwater and future health of the environmental and citizens of the Northwest must not be a guessing game. We do not know enough today to decide what to do about these wastes. In depth analysis of the actual fate of the leak tank waste is needed before decisions can be made about what to do with the leaked tank waste and the tanks themselves.
Response There is currently insufficient information to address remediation of past practice activities for the tank farms. The scope of the EIS is the management and disposal of the tank waste and cesium and strontium capsules. Remediation of past practice tank waste leaks is not within the scope of this EIS, but will be addressed in a future NEPA analysis. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0012.15, 0030.02, 0072.08, 0072.47, 0076.04, 0091.01, and 0098.04.
Comment Number 0079.06
Knight, Paige
Comment If privatization fails, you must start over. Do it quickly, but you must do it. The DOE must not have the sole authority to determine failure in this process.
Response The Draft EIS addresses regulatory compliance for each alternative in Volume One, Section 6.2. However, the relative authority and responsibilities of the agencies under the Tri-Party Agreement are beyond the scope of the EIS. The 1996 Tri-Party Agreement amendment contains a contingency plan in the event that privatization failed to meet established criteria. Therefore, both Ecology and EPA are part of the decision-making process concerning the success of privatization. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0072.73, 0072.74, 0078.01 and 0088.05.
Comment Number 0087.02
Tewksbury, Ross
Comment Now, one of the problem that Hanford has had over the years, which seems to be setting back in here with the problems with the budget and the Congress, is that it's doing things on the cheap, or only taking halfway measures, and it winds up being far more expensive in the long run. And the whole history of Hanford is one of the worst examples of this type of thing.
Response DOE and Ecology share the desire and expectation that Congress will provide the necessary funding to perform the remediation alternative selected. However, funding issues are not within the scope of this EIS.
Comment Number 0088.04
Porter, Lynn
Comment Okay, I would like to see Casey Ruuds' research into the waste migrating through the soil towards the groundwater, I'd like to see that fully funded. As I said earlier, I would be really upset and angry if DOE fires Casey Ruuds, because I think we really need him out there.
Response The emerging information concerning contamination in the soil column from past-practice activities was discussed in Volume One, Section 3.3 of the Draft EIS; and the Final EIS has been modified in Volume One, Section 4.2 and Volume Five, Appendix K to add additional discussion of this information. In Volume One, Section 3.4 and Appendix B, the EIS indicates that characterization and monitoring of the vadose zone and groundwater associated with tank leaks is among the ongoing operations that would continue under all alternatives analyzed in the EIS. DOE has implemented a program to better characterize the leaks from past practice activities. However, closure that would address alternatives for remediating contaminated soil and groundwater, the funding of particular projects and the employment of individuals are beyond the scope of the EIS. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0012.15, 0030.02, 0078.08, 0091.01 and 0098.04.
L.9.4 NEED TO PREPARE THE EIS
Comment Number 0005.07
Swanson, John L.
Comment I do not believe that this EIS will be used to aid decision makers, other than to provide for them as much justification as possible for decisions that they have already made. Shouldn't it really have been written before the Tri-Party Agreement was reached?
Response NEPA does not preclude DOE from identifying a preferred course of action before an EIS is prepared. NEPA does require DOE to provide the decision makers and public with information regarding the potential environmental impacts of any proposed action and reasonable alternatives so that when decisions to irretrievably commit the agency to a specific course of action are made, environmental consequences are considered by the decision makers.
Similarly, the TWRS EIS will provide the decision makers and public with information regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, which includes the current Tri-Party Agreement approach. The ROD for the TWRS EIS will document the decisions made regarding tank waste management and disposal. DOE and Ecology believe that the EIS will provide one more valuable source of information to be used by the decision maker to reach a final decision on tank waste management and disposal. Please also refer to the response to Comment numbers 0005.09, 0034.05, and 0055.03.
Comment Number 0009.01
Broderick, John L.
Comment I attended the May 2 public hearing in Pasco. One comment that came up several times in the testimony and in discussions in the back of the meeting room was: We should not reopen this issue; we have already decided how to deal with these wastes. My answer to that comment is that it is being reopened because Hanford can not seem to complete projects. We try to clean up Hanford without any health effects, with facilities that take too long to construct, and with project that cost too much money.
Response Please refer to the response to Comment number 0034.05, which addresses a similarly worded comment.
Comment Number 0034.05
Belsey, Richard
Comment And in January of 1994, the agreement was signed. And we thought okay now they are going to get on with it. And the Tank Waste Task Force said get on with it because it is so expensive and it's so unsafe.
Then we found out that they were not going to start with the preferred alternative and go and look at the impact of that, but that because of the size of the program and such they needed to do this full Environmental Impact Statement.
That was not the sentiment of the people of the Northwest who made up their minds and essentially voted with their feet to come and tell us about that in all these meetings.
Response The EIS was initiated because DOE is required by NEPA to complete an EIS when considering an action that could significantly affect the quality of the human environment (40 CFR 1500). Failure to complete an EIS would pose a legal risk to the implementation of tank waste retrieval, treatment, and disposal actions. Also, State law requires preparation of an environmental analysis under the SEPA to support subsequent State actions, such as granting permits for construction and operation of facilities (WAC 197-11).
As indicated in Volume One, Section 1.1, the TWRS EIS is being prepared in response to several important changes since the 1988 Hanford Defense Waste EIS ROD. These changes, which included substantial changes in the actions identified in the 1988 ROD (e.g., signing of the Tri-Party Agreement and changes to the proposed action), required DOE to prepare an EIS. This requirement is based on CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.18) that require an EIS when:
- Adopting official policy, such as ... "formal documents establishing an agency's policies which will result in or substantially alter agency programs."
- A Federal action includes "adoption of formal plans, such as official documents prepared or approved by federal agencies which guide or prescribe alternative uses of federal resources, upon which future agency actions will be based."
In this case, the formal document and plan that would alter DOE policies and require alternative uses of Federal actions was the revised approach to tank waste remediation contained in the 1994 amendments to the Tri-Party Agreement. Therefore, DOE initiated the EIS to comply with NEPA.
In preparing the EIS, DOE was required to evaluate the proposed action, a no action alternative, and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (40 CFR 1502.14). CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) require an EIS to:
"Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives..."
"Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits."
DOE and Ecology view the TWRS EIS as a necessary step in the continued progress in managing and disposing of the tank waste. This document ensures compliance with NEPA and SEPA and provides the public and decision makers with an analysis of the comparative impacts on human and natural environment and a range of considered alternatives.
In response to these requirements, DOE developed alternatives for evaluation that included the no action alternative, alternatives based on the Tri-Party Agreement approach to tank waste management and disposal, alternatives recommended for consideration during the scoping process, and a range of reasonable alternatives that were representative of the alternatives available on the continuum from no action to full retrieval and disposal of the tank waste. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0005.07, 0005.09, 0055.03, and 0072.05 for related discussions.
Comment Number 0055.02
Martin, Todd
Comment The first thing I would like to talk about is a HEAL fact sheet which is on the back table over there. First bullet we have on this fact sheet is something that has been said before that the TWRS EIS is essentially a step backwards. It ignores a widely supported body of documentation that led to the current Tri-Party Agreement plans. Essentially the work in this EIS has been done before and it has been done better. We should rely on that and go forward. Continues to debate the issues that have long been resolved. What waste form are we going to use? Dr. Belsey spoke very elegantly about sticking with glass. Let us get on with it.
Response In preparing the EIS, DOE and Ecology incorporated past documentation that led to the current Tri-Party Agreement plans to the extent that the information was relevant and provided the best and most currently available data on which alternatives could be developed and the applicable alternative impact analyzed. In many cases, the data used during the Tri-Party Agreement renegotiations were the best available data. However, new data were used to address the substantial issues described in the EIS. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0034.05 and 0072.05 for discussion of NEPA requirements relative to analyzing environmental impact of alternatives for management and disposal of tank waste.
Comment Number 0064.02
Roecker, John H.
Comment I guess I would just like to close by emphasizing what some of the gentlemen have already said about getting on with it. And I'll just give you a little bit more history. The first defense waste management plan was written in 1972. 1972. The second one was written in 1983. The third one basically was written in 1988 when the Tri-Party Agreement was first signed. The fourth one was written in 1994 when the Tri-Party Agreement was renegotiated. We have gone through this study at least four times, the history that I know. We have come up with basically the same conclusion every single time. There has been one change in all those 25 years. And that is we've abandoned grout as the low-activity waste form, and gone to vitrification. Every thing else has changed -- has stayed the same. Nothing has changed. And I guess I just urge DOE, the Federal government, to let's get on with cleanup at Hanford. It's way past due. Thank you.
Response As indicated in Volume One, Section 1.1, management and disposal of the Hanford Site high-level tank waste has been a long-term issue of concern and study. As new data have become available, the strategy planned for the management, treatment, and disposal of tank waste has changed. One change noted in the comment was the decision to use vitrification rather than grout as the preferred waste form for LAW. Other substantial changes included terminating the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant because of insufficient capacity and the decision to include SST waste retrieval and treatment in combination with DST waste. These changes, among others, represented substantial changes in the proposed action, which has potentially significant impacts on the human or natural environment. DOE and Ecology concur with the view that it is important to "get on" with the clean up of the Hanford Site and the tank waste. DOE views this EIS as a necessary step in the continued progress toward tank waste removal and treatment. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0034.05 and 0072.05 for related discussion of NEPA requirements associated with the EIS.
Comment Number 0065.01
Phillips, Thomas
Comment All I want to say is, in 1988 we had a Tri-Party Agreement that said we would clean up this waste in 30 years. That was 8 years ago. We haven't cleaned up any of the tanks at all at this time. The only change is, as this man pointed out, is we renegotiated it for 40 years. Now we're having discussions about privatization and this Environmental Impact Study, which has taken 2 years, and will take approximately 2½ years before it's done. The privatization, the contracts are going to be awarded some time this year, but no one has said exactly when these plants are going to start cranking out waste, and no one has shown us that there is actually going to be any waste cranked out any time soon. It's projections. I, like all the other people here, feel that we need to get on with it, we need to clean this up, we need to quit studying this to death. It looks like to me that the Environment Impact Study, the privatization plan are just smoke screens to delay doing it so the next administration can come up and pick up the buck that this administration, Miss O'Leary and Mr. Clinton, are passing on to our next generation. No one is doing anything. We need to get on with it.
Response DOE and Ecology share the desire to proceed with remediation at the earliest possible date. A decision was made in 1988 concerning methods to remediate the waste, but due to the development of additional technical information and concerns raised by many stakeholders, DOE and Ecology changed the proposed approach to remediating the tank waste.
The following changes affected the planned approach for managing the disposal of Hanford Site tank waste.
B Plant, which was selected in the Hanford Defense Waste ROD as the facility for pretreatment processes to comply with current environmental and safety requirements, was found not to be viable or cost-effective.
The Tri-Party Agreement was signed by DOE, Ecology, and EPA in 1989, establishing an approach for achieving environmental compliance at the Hanford Site, including specific milestones for the retrieval, treatment, and disposal of tank waste.
Safety issues were identified for about 50 DSTs and SSTs, which became classified as Watchlist tanks in response to the 1990 enactment of Public Law 101-510.
The planned grout project was terminated, and a vitrified waste form was adopted as the proposed approach as a result of stakeholders' concerns with the long-term adequacy of near-surface disposal of grouted LAW in vaults.
The construction of the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant was delayed because of insufficient capacity to vitrify the HLW fraction of all DST and SST waste in the planned time frame.
The planning basis for retrieval of the waste from underground storage tanks was changed to include the SSTs and treating the retrieved SST waste in combination with DST waste.
These changes resulted in an extensive reevaluation of the waste treatment and disposal plan that culminated in adopting a revised strategy to manage and dispose of tank waste and encapsulated cesium and strontium. The reevaluation of the waste treatment and disposal plan began following a December 1991 decision by the Secretary of Energy to reconsider the entire tank safety and treatment and disposal program and to accelerate the retrieval and disposal of SST waste. DOE plans to issue a final decision on remediation in the early Fall of 1996 and move rapidly into the design and construction phases of the project.
L.9.5 ADEQUACY OF THE DRAFT EIS
Comment Number 0005.02
Swanson, John L.
Comment My overall feelings about this draft are really quite mixed. On a superficial basis, it appears to be quite good-but then I see many statements that I know to be misleading if not inaccurate, which make it appear to be not good. In addition, there are many inconsistencies between sections. Perhaps it would have been better to spend more time on getting a few things "right" (and properly qualified) and less time on excessive detail in relatively unimportant areas.
Response Without specific comments that identify statements that are "misleading if not inaccurate" or inconsistent, the specific responses cannot be made. In cases where inaccuracies or inconsistencies were specifically identified, DOE and Ecology have acknowledged the correction required and incorporated revisions to the EIS. In other cases, information in the EIS was perceived as inaccurate or inconsistent. However, on closer examination, the text or analysis contained in the Draft EIS was determined by DOE and Ecology to be accurate and consistent. DOE and Ecology recognize that in a document this size that addresses complex issues, errors and omissions sometimes occur. The agencies value the public comment process because comments that identify errors and omissions contribute to a more accurate Final EIS. The comment process provides an opportunity for many stakeholders, interested State and Federal agencies, and Tribal Nations to review the Draft EIS document and provide comments that contribute to making the Final EIS a better document.
Comment Number 0005.04
Swanson, John L.
Comment I detect an ambivalence in this draft about the status of assumptions. Sometimes it is said that the assumptions are bounding and/or conservative and other times conclusions are drawn as if the assumptions were known to be true, when different assumptions could lead to different conclusions.
Response The approach in the EIS is to identify assumptions for each alternative and area of impact analysis. When differing assumptions would likely substantially change the analysis presented in the EIS, the EIS identifies and discusses this potential. When feasible, an uncertainty analysis is provided to fully inform the public and decision makers of the potential impact. To better communicate the role of assumptions and uncertainty in the EIS, a new appendix has been added to the Final EIS in Volume Five, Appendix K. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0005.03 and 0012.17.
Comment Number 0005.06
Swanson, John L.
Comment Many of my comments, along with most of those made at the May 2 hearing, fall into the "hindsight is better than foresight" category. However, it is also true (I believe) that this EIS effort was not performed very well as far as resource allocation and schedule are concerned. That is water over the dam now, and we'd better get on with the job of cleaning up the waste now that the obligatory EIS is nearing completion.
Response As with any project, cost and schedule enhancements are feasible, especially when viewed after the fact. However, without specific comments regarding how resources could have better utilized or how the schedule could have been optimized, the generalized assertion contained in this comment cannot be addressed.
Comment Number 0014.02
Bullington, Darryl
Comment Past events relating to the storage and transfer of these materials combined with over 30 years of inaction and indecision regarding safe storage of radioactive fuel materials followed by the generation of these reports with which the public is asked to choose between alternatives which do not include even preliminary feasibility studies is unconscionable.
Response The analysis contained in the Draft EIS was based on conceptual designs, which are contained in the TWRS Administrative Record and DOE Reading Rooms and Information Repositories and are summarized in Volume One, Section 3.4 and Volume Two, Appendix B. This approach is consistent with CEQ requirements to consider environmental impacts early in the decision making process (40 CFR 1500).
Comment Number 0035.01
Martin, Todd
Comment Essentially, the Hanford Education Action League thinks that the TWRS EIS is a step backwards.
We think that this work has been done before and has been done better. It ignores all of the documentation that was developed to support the Tri-Party Agreement over a two-year period, and it also ignores the public process that went into that document development.
Response Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0005.07, 0005.09, 0034.05, and 0055.03 which address similarly worded comments.
Comment Number 0038.02
Reeves, Merilyn
Comment The Tank Waste Treatment and Disposal program has been developed through extensive public involvement, long technical study process that provided a credible and the technical basis for the program.
In essence, many stakeholders believe that the intent of the NEPA process has been met. An if a declaration had been made that NEPA had been satisfied, it would have been made -- it would have been welcomed by the stakeholders.
But stakeholders understood DOE's concern that an EIS must be completed for the purpose of NEPA compliance. And given this, the stakeholders would have supported an expedited EIS that just fleshed out the impacts of the Tri-Party Agreement preferred alternatives, not another whole study of the gamut of options.
Unfortunately this EIS has been a long time in coming and does not analyze the full range of options in detail. This EIS represents to me just another redundant study, and it does not reflect our value of getting on with cleanup.
Response DOE and Ecology view the TWRS EIS as a necessary step in the continued progress in managing and disposing of the tank waste. This document ensures compliance with NEPA and SEPA and provides the public and decision makers with an analysis of the comparative impacts on the human and natural environment and a range of considered alternatives.
During the scoping process for the TWRS EIS, DOE and Ecology approved the following schedule: publish the Draft EIS in August 1995; publish the Final EIS in April 1996; and publish the ROD in May 1996. The agencies stated that by combining these two processes [NEPA and SEPA], the agencies hope as a result to accelerate the TWRS EIS (DOE 1994m). Following the conclusion of the scoping process, DOE and Ecology determined that the accelerated schedule would not be feasible. DOE and Ecology believe that given the technical complexity associated with tank waste remediation, the emergence of new data since January 1994 that needed to be addressed in the EIS, and the need to address a broad range of potential environmental impacts, the EIS has been prepared as expeditiously as could be reasonably expected. Moreover, the EIS has been and will continue to be completed on a schedule that does not adversely affect compliance with Tri-Party Agreement milestones. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0034.05 and 0072.05 for more information.
Comment Number 0038.12
Reeves, Merilyn
Comment In spite of vigorous and discipline re-base lining, the Hanford Advisory Board realizes that the Tri-Party Agreement can always be improved upon, and therefore we strongly support critical reviews of the program within the context of the Tri-Party Agreement requirements.
However, a critical pillar in the Hanford Advisory Board's support for the Tri-Party Agreement is a belief that it is time to go forward. And we hope that the intention of the systems review, which is what we were addressing at that point in time, the systems requirement review team -- we hope that the intention of the systems requirements review team is not to spend an inordinate amount of time challenging the decisions laid out in the Tri-Party Agreement at this late date.
In a skeptical and wary stakeholder community, such re-examination would certainly be viewed at best as a DOE delay tactic or at worst an attempt to circumvent the provisions of the Tri-Party Agreement.
This is not the EIS, but it is applicable to it. The Board holds similar concerns in regards to the TWRS EIS. Our concerns are heightened by the inability of the Agencies to complete the EIS on or even nearly near the critical schedule.
And the EIS was supposed to be completed as of June of '95. And now DOE and Ecology will be very fortunate if this June in '96 it can come out.
In summary, the Board finds that the EIS is largely an unnecessary document, goes directly against the get on with it value that citizens wanted in the Northwest.
Response Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0034.05 and 0052.02 for discussions regarding the need to complete the analysis required in an EIS and the role of the EIS in regulatory compliance. Please also refer to the response to Comment number 0038.02 regarding the scoping process and the schedule for the EIS.
Comment Number 0072.01
CTUIR
Comment In any major federal action, it is critical that assumptions, data, interpretations, conclusions, and uncertainties be clearly identified. Such critical and often limiting factors can have profound ramifications to a comprehensive decision process addressing complex issues, such as the safe and effective retrieval, treatment, and isolation of diverse Hanford tank wastes.
These concepts need more emphasis than what is in the current Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS)-Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This EIS deals with the retrieval of radioactive and hazardous waste currently stored at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington state. Hanford is located in part on the aboriginal lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), where the Tribes retain off-reservation treaty-reserved rights and interests.
Response The assumptions, data, interpretations, conclusions, and uncertainties for each discipline were clearly identified in their respective appendix (inventory - Volume Two, Appendix A; engineering - Volume Two, Appendix B; human health risks - Volume Three, Appendix D; accidents - Volume Four, Appendix E; groundwater - Volume Four, Appendix F; air - Volume Five, Appendix G; and socioeconomics - Volume Five, Appendix H) of the Draft EIS. Key assumptions and conclusions also are identified in the respective sections of Volume One, Section 5.0; Environmental Consequences. A more extensive uncertainty section was added to the Final EIS as Volume Five, Appendix K. Because the information requested in the comment was included in the Draft EIS, no modification to the document is warranted. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0005.03 and 0012.17.
Comment Number 0081.08
Pollet, Gerald
Comment The bottom line is throughout this EIS that the policy makers will view an extremely skewed cost versus risk and benefit analyses in this EIS if they look at it today. And everything in the EIS is driven currently towards saying let's leave it behind. The risks aren't so high. Risk of explosion aren't so high. The risk of fatal cancers aren't so high from leaving it behind. The costs are so much lower than retrieval. When in fact the risks are so much higher from leaving it behind, or any delay, and the costs are actually similar for retrieving, as they are for leaving it behind.
Response Cost and human health risks are presented in the Summary, Section S.7 and Volume One, Sections 3.4, 5.11, and 5.12. The cost and human health risk numbers were developed using the best available information and industry- and government-accepted analytical methods. DOE and Ecology
consider this information to be unbiased and the best available information for the public and decision makers to use in evaluating the alternatives. Please refer to the response to Comment 0081.02 for a discussion of how the repository costs were calculated for the Final EIS.
Comment Number 0087.03
Tewksbury, Ross
Comment Now, many of the assumptions and the estimates are faulty or erroneous because of the facts that you know nobody knows just exactly what's in the tanks, and nobody knows just how much the tanks have leaked, and nobody knows where the leaks have gone, or how far, and nobody knows where to put the high-level waste once it even comes to some final condition, and where it can be put permanently. And there's apparently there's so much stuff that's leaking, with the tanks, and the cribs, and the power plants, everything, that you don't even know where it's coming from. As you have said tonight. So with all the things that nobody really knows, then it's really hard to come up with exact costs and estimates and assumptions.
So as some of the previous speakers were saying, I really, it really upsets me if you come up with some of these standard things that you know the costs and things are really low, that the danger from them is really low or nonexistent when nobody really knows anyway.
Response The EIS fully identifies the assumptions made in performing the analysis and presents the uncertainties associated with the implementation of each alternative. This information is presented in Volume Five, Appendix K in the Final EIS. Although there are details that are unknown about certain aspects of the alternatives, DOE and Ecology believe that there is adequate information available to analyze the alternatives, select an alternative, and proceed with remediation. The costs of the alternatives are presented in ranges to account for the uncertainties. The Final EIS will present ranges in human health risk to provide information concerning the uncertainties associated with these calculations. It should be noted that contamination beneath the tanks from past practice activities is outside the scope of this EIS. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0005.03, 0012.17, and 0072.08.
L.9.6 RECORD OF DECISION
Comment Number 0009.14
Broderick, John L.
Comment There has been a lot of effort by a lot of people to decide on the Preferred Alternative. However, it has the appearance of being selected because that is what has been agreed to before the EIS ROD is available. The usual order of decision is NEPA, then other agreements.
Response The final decision on the selection of an alternative will be made no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the Notice of Availability for the Final EIS is published in the Federal Register and it will be identified in the ROD. The efforts made concerning the Phased Implementation alternative have been to establish DOE's proposed action. NEPA requires that an EIS evaluate the
proposed action and alternatives to it as was done for the TWRS EIS. No modification to the EIS is required because the required procedures were followed. Please refer to the responses to Comment number 0005.07, 0027.01, and 0036.15.
Comment Number 0012.10
ODOE
Comment We urge U.S. DOE to analyze the cumulative impacts from previously leaked tank waste, waste disposed to cribs, trenches, reverse wells, drain fields, ponds, burial grounds, and other locations. The record of decision should require the preparation of a peer-reviewed detailed long-term performance and risk assessment, that includes all of the factors above. This risk assessment should be a joint effort of USDOE with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EPA and other state, tribal and Federal agencies with regulatory authority or special expertise for resources at Hanford and should be conducted separately from this EIS.
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. Cumulative impacts of the TWRS alternatives, past leaks, and past-practice sites are addressed in Volume One, Section 5.13 and Appendix F. Although not within the scope of this EIS, DOE will consider the request separately for a peer-reviewed risk assessment. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0005.17, 0012.15, 0040.06, 0072.08, and 0101.05.
Comment Number 0035.03
Martin, Todd
Comment Another concern we have had is schedule. We were concerned, and the agencies were concerned that if this EIS did not meet its schedule, it could throw the TWRS program into a death spiral.
What has happened is the original record of decision was to be had by June 1995. Now we are going to be lucky if we have a record of decision by June of 1996.
Response Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0034.05, 0038.02, and 0055.03 which address similarly worded comments.
Comment Number 0040.07
Rogers, Gordon J.
Comment I need to add that these comments are my own as a taxpaying citizen who is concerned with the staggering cost estimates for each of the other treatment alternatives, considering the rather low risk provided we have the common sense and optimism in the capacity of humans to manage and solve problems and threats in the future as has been the case through much of human history. I hope these comments generate some serious thought by DOE and the Regulators in deciding how to proceed.
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 0043.03
Hanford Communities
Comment We call on the Department of Energy, with the support of regulatory agencies to proceed expeditiously to adopt a record of decision and award a contract with a private firm to begin the design and permitting of a vitrification facility.
Response DOE remains committed to pursuing the earliest possible ROD date and implementing the preferred alternative as soon as possible. The EIS will not delay award of privatization contracts for Phase 1a. 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.
Comment Number 0072.12
CTUIR
Comment This is a retrieval EIS, not a closure EIS, and the ROD should explicitly state that the selection of any of the retrieval options in no way implies that a particular closure method is thereby approved.
Response DOE will incorporate the recommended language into the ROD. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0019.03, 0072.08, 0072.46, and 0101.06.
Comment Number 0072.13
CTUIR
Comment Existing soil and groundwater contamination should be included as part of the Tank farms source term, and the entire tank waste inventory should be considered as part of an overall aggregate 200 Area source term.
Response The scope of the TWRS EIS is the remediation of the tank waste and cesium and strontium capsules. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.08 for a discussion of the reasons for not including closure of the tank farms, including past practice releases of contaminants to the soil column, in the TWRS EIS. However, existing soil and groundwater contamination was addressed in the cumulative impacts presented in Volume One, Section 5.13 and Appendix F. Closure will be addressed in a future NEPA analysis. Because the analysis requested in the comment is not within the scope of the EIS, no modification to the document is warranted. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0012.15 and 0072.08.
L.9.7 OUT-OF-SCOPE ISSUES (Other Than Closure)
Comment Number 0011.01
Gilsdorf, Paul D.
Comment If you have any information that could help me find a job I will be eternally grateful. I am a carpenter with a degree in biochem. What does that mean, well I do not know either but I still need a job. Hope you have a great day.
Response Facilitation of employment for individuals, as well as identification of contractors to perform tasks identified in the EIS, are beyond the scope of the EIS.
Comment Number 0014.05
Bullington, Darryl C.
Comment I pray daily that existing governments will find a way to prevent the release of radioactive toxic materials into the air, water, and food by continuing to invent increasingly clever ways to disperse such materials over the planet.
Response The EIS evaluates alternatives to manage and dispose of tank waste and cesium and strontium capsules, in a manner which will protect human health and the environment from the future releases from the tank wastes and capsules.
Comment Number 0014.06
Bullington, Darryl C.
Comment I pray, too, that the diversion of sporting events and political elections will not divert the public's attention from demanding solutions to these most critical decisions of our time. Should action be taken I pray that the government does not attempt to absolve itself from responsibility by giving the cleanup to unproven, unmonitored contractors that win cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts by submitting least cost proposals.
Response The qualifications of potential remediation contractors and the contracting strategies associated with implementation of the actions considered in the EIS are outside of the scope of the EIS. However, in both cases, DOE is required by Federal procurement rules to select qualified contractors to perform all work contracted by a Federal agency. All work contracted must be performed in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
Comment Number 0016.01
J.L. Shepherd and Assoc.
Comment The purpose of this report is to encourage the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Washington State Department of Ecology and other interested parties to reconsider a proposed program for long-term storage and eventual disposal of the WESF cesium-137 source capsules at Hanford, under the Cesium Legacy Project EM30-ADS-84900-00-SA. In our opinion, the contents of these WESF capsules are a national resource and are vital to U.S. interests. To support this position, included in this report is a brief history of previous USDOE encapsulation programs of the WESF contents. We believe that the DOE could restart a cost-effective and waste reducing source encapsulation program, perhaps including the cesium-137 retrieved from the waste tank remediation project. The primary focus of this response is on medical and health related uses of cesium-137 sealed sources. A secondary focus is on cesium-137 source user's commitments to environmental concerns, especially non-burial (source recycling) programs and regulatory constraints and regulation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Agreement States.
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. The TWRS EIS addresses alternatives for disposal of tank waste and encapsulated cesium and strontium. The encapsulated cesium and strontium are included in the EIS primarily because they were originally extracted from the stored high-level tank waste to reduce the thermal heat generation in the tanks and would be considered HLW for purposes of disposal. DOE and Ecology have identified the No Action alternative as the preferred alternative. The EIS has been modified in the Summary and in Volume One, Section 1.3 to reflect that No Action is the preferred alternative. DOE is actively seeking commercial interest in the beneficial applications for the encapsulated cesium and strontium, and DOE and Ecology remain committed to pursuing any viable commercial or other beneficial uses. However, that analysis is outside the scope of this EIS. These uses would not be without substantial cost for reprocessing and repackaging because the current encapsulation was designed principally for storage purposes. If viable commercial or beneficial uses are not implemented, the capsules would be designated as waste at some point in the future and would be disposed of using methods consistent with the alternatives identified in the EIS. Also, it is unlikely that DOE would pursue any course of action to remove and encapsulate additional amounts of cesium, strontium, or other radionuclides unless viable use is made of the current capsule inventory or there is a clear, viable commercial or beneficial interest in the additional amounts. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0006.01 and 0010.01 for more information on this topic.
Comment Number 0016.02
J.L. Shepherd and Assoc.
Comment We have tried to present information which will lead to reconsideration of the burial/disposal proposal for the WESF capsules. The contents of these capsules, besides the cesium in the waste tanks, are the only domestic supply of cesium which can be used in the sources for the many critical and beneficial applications described in this written comment. We have tried to make the point that cesium is a strategic U.S. product, that currently the sole world supplier of this material is Myak, Russia and that the same preliminary techniques used for vitrification can be used in making special form source capsules. We invite anyone reading this comment to contact us with any inquiries, questions, or requests for further information concerning its contents to contact us.
Response Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0006.01 and 0010.01 for discussions related to consideration of beneficial uses of cesium and strontium capsules.
Comment Number 0031.01
Billett, John
Comment Even though I have a sheaf of paper in my hands, it will only be a few minutes. I just want to summarize some comments, particularly on the issue of the recycling of the cesium which is the subject I want to put some comments on the record about.
The market for cesium-137 has progressively increased worldwide particularly over the past 27 years due to an increase in medical research and our knowledge of medicine as well as the knowledge in the areas of personnel radiation protection.
The only current supplier of large cesium-137 sources is located in Russia. In the interest of public health and safety we are suggesting that the U.S. should consider domestic cesium-137 extraction from the capsules or tank waste as a strategic material viable to national interest.
Response Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0006.01 and 0010.01 for discussions related to consideration of beneficial uses of cesium and strontium capsules.
Comment Number 0031.02
Billett, John
Comment Without the use of these special form cesium-137 sources in medical research we would not have many of the lifesaving technologies we enjoy today.
And there are many potential breakthroughs in cancer research and prevention which will not be possible without large cesium-137 sources.
People from all walks of life are affected, including the nurses and patients in nuclear medicine departments.
And we are talking here about x-rays, mammography, cat scan, MRI, oncology, blood banks, the technicians in a dental office, the emergency response personnel for transportation, reactor or nuclear accidents and incidents, and the public teachers and students at university research laboratories and in the biomedical field.
Response Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0006.01 and 0010.01 which address similarly worded comments.
Comment Number 0037.02
Eldredge, Maureen
Comment The funding for the entire cleanup program is continually at risk. Last year was a particularly difficult one in the appropriations cycle.
We continually heard and had to deal with allegations of problems, waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. And the fingers kept pointing at Hanford.
We need to start seeing progress. We need to see action. We need to get moving, or we are going to continually face that slideward -- downward trend of funding.
Response The data prepared for each alternative were presented as objectively as possible, including the potential costs (listed in 1995 dollars) associated with implementation. Forecasting Congressional funding is beyond the scope of the EIS and was not included in the implementability discussion sections. DOE is committed to pursuing remediation at the earliest practicable date.
Comment Number 0037.04
Eldredge, Maureen
Comment Which also leads me to the old concept of the big picture. The Department of Energy seems to have a problem with it.
The Waste Management Programmatic Environment Impact Statement which the draft was recently released, and quite seriously panned by everyone, was supposed to look at programmatic impacts of all the waste in the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex.
I assume that might include waste coming out of Hanford tanks, but it does not. And there is no cross-linkages between all of the EIS actions. That needs to happen. We need to start looking at the high level, low level, mixed waste in the Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex as a comprehensive total, not as piecemeal efforts.
Response The scope of the TWRS EIS includes management and disposal of tank waste and cesium and strontium capsules. The cumulative impact section addresses the impact of TWRS alternatives within the context of related actions at the Hanford Site and within the DOE complex. The TWRS action is being conducted within the framework of DOE's responsibility to manage and dispose of HLW and to comply with applicable local, State, and Federal laws and regulations.
Comment Number 0043.04
Hanford Communities
Comment The Department of Energy must make very effort to assure the success of the tank waste vitrification program. Adequate funding must be provided for both the privatization initiative as well as the DOE tasks associated with characterization, tank safety and the steps necessary to deliver liquid waste to the vitrification facility. We are concerned about the proposal to take funds out of the Hanford cleanup budget to finance a liability reserve. The impact of taking this money out of the budget will seriously jeopardize the existing TWRS program as well as other programs. We encourage the Department of Energy to establish a liability reserve fund for this initiative. Funds for this reserve should not come from the Hanford cleanup budget.
Response Privatization and Congressional funding issues are not within the scope of the EIS. The purpose of the privatization reserve funding is not to cover 100 percent of all potential liabilities for the privatization contractor's construction and operation of the immobilization facilities. There are two primary reasons to have the reserve funding pool: 1) to cover the contractor capitalization cost during design and construction in the event of Termination for Convenience on the part of DOE; and 2) to level the DOE budgetary requirements during operation of the contractor facilities.
Before issuance of the RFP, there were a series of conversations with vendors that might be interested in providing immobilization services to DOE. These vendors expressed concern with the potential financial risk associated with project starts and stops. Under privatization, contractors would make a significant capital investment for an extended period of time before receiving any return on the investment. To protect themselves and their stockholders against the possibility of a change in direction and project starts and stops leaving the contractors with a large capital investment, the vendors wanted to ensure that they could be reimbursed for their investment if the change in direction or starts and stops were the responsibility of DOE and not the vendors.
When treatment services are initiated in 2002, the reserve funds would be "drawn-down" to pay for waste treatment services. Rather than being an insurance fund, the reserve is a "bank account" in which funds are saved over a period of time so that DOE can assure private industry that money will be available, when needed, to "pay the bills." Because the analysis requested in the comment is not within the scope of the EIS, no modification to the document is warranted.
Comment Number 0093.01
Devoy, Tiffany
Comment I think when you are talking about 200 plus billion dollars a year going to defense, then 200 billion dollars total to take care of what will be with us for hundreds of thousands of years is not that high of a price tag.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the opinion expressed in the comment. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0075.02.
L.9.8 HEARINGS
Comment Number 0022.01
Shims, Lynn
Comment Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. Thank you also for holding a TWRS public meeting in the Portland area. In my opinion meetings such as these are not only useful educational methods but also important for clarification dialog, expansion of perspective for all parties and significant value input.
Response Dialogue with stakeholders at public meetings provides valuable information regarding the proposed action, alternatives to the proposed action, and the potential environmental consequences of the alternatives considered in the EIS. Further, dialogue at meetings is critical to informing the agencies of the values, concerns, and issues important to the public. NEPA and SEPA were adopted to ensure that information is exchanged between the government and the public. Under NEPA, the government actively incorporates public involvement in government decisions potentially affecting human health and the environment. The government also must provide decision makers and the public with information that would aid in making informed decisions regarding the alternatives and the impact of each alternative. Public meetings are an important aspect of ensuring that NEPA and SEPA are implemented to the maximum extent possible. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0020.01 for more information of TWRS EIS public involvement.
Comment Number 0022.05
Shims, Lynn
Comment It is appreciated that an attempt was made at the Portland meeting to change the usual design of the meeting to enhance public participation. I believe that the strong opinions of the public were due to the fact that the subject of tank wastes as related to public health and safety are of great importance to us.
Response DOE and Ecology are committed to continually improving public participation in the decision making process. For the TWRS EIS public hearings, the agencies worked closely with the stakeholders to provide alternative formats for meetings that would improve the opportunity for dialogue between the public and agency representatives.
Comment Number 0046.01
DiGirolamo, Linda Raye
Comment With the exception of the speaker for the HEAL group this discussion was far too "technical" for the average citizen.
Response The DOE and Ecology objective was to use to the extent possible in the EIS, language that was appropriate and understandable by the average citizen. One reason for holding a question and answer session at the hearing was to provide an opportunity for the public to present clarifying questions to the agency representatives. Both agencies are committed to continued efforts to improve communication with the public. Your comment will assist the agencies to improve the process, especially where communication was not as effective as preferred.
Comment Number 0062.06
Longmeyer, Richard
Comment Just a final comment. The advertisement for this meeting was a little bit more than it had been in the past. I've attended other meetings, and I get information from Hanford all the time, but I'm glad to see that we have a little better representation here in Spokane this time. Unfortunately it was HEAL that did that advertising. I really feel it's the responsibility of the DOE to do that, instead of HEAL. Now whether the DOE needs to hire an advertising agency to help them to put a better face on the meeting, or whatever, I don't know. But I do appreciate HEAL's effort in that regard, but I do feel it's the DOE's responsibility. Thank you.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the role of HEAL and others in making the Spokane-area public aware of the public meeting. The public meeting was coordinated with HEAL and other stakeholders because the outreach efforts of these groups has proven to be helpful. DOE and Ecology worked closely with HEAL representatives to ensure that the location, date, and format of the meeting maximized public participation. Further, DOE advertised the meeting in the local newspaper and distributed four separate mailings to interested area residents on the Tri-Party Agreement mailing list. These efforts, in conjunction with the efforts of HEAL and other Hanford Site stakeholders were instrumental in ensuring that the public was provided with an opportunity to participate in the decision making process, as required by NEPA. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0066.01 and 0087.01 for more information on TWRS EIS public involvement.
Comment Number 0075.01
Wright, Peter
Comment My only comment is with respect to DOE, and I guess Ecology. I find that I'm really saddened by the fact that there's not a lot more people here. It's the first time I've gone to a government meeting, which may be characterized more by bureaucrats, than by human beings, and found that it's mostly human beings who recognize that we're all in this together. And I really feel that your average is a sign, at least to me, that there's a recognition that all of our kids are going to suffer from this.
Response Participation at the five public meetings on the TWRS EIS varied substantially; however, in total more than 400 individuals attended the meetings and more than 350 individuals provided oral or written comments on the Draft EIS. DOE and Ecology are committed to the public involvement process and continue to strive to ensure the public has access to the decision making process. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0087.01 and 0066.01 for more information on TWRS EIS public involvement.
Comment Number 0087.01
Tewksbury, Ross
Comment And I, first I want to say that it's good that your having a meeting here in Portland, and I want to encourage you to keep having them here regarding each issue as it comes up, and not just in Seattle and Tri-Cities. And I also want to say I hope you don't have any more video meetings. And as I was saying earlier, if you want more people here there's lots of things that you can do, as opposed to doing just the legal bare minimum. You can try and have an article in the paper, rather than just ad's. You can have an ad in the paper every day for two weeks in a row, you know, prior to the meeting. You can have announcements on the radio stations and TV, especially OPB and KBOL. And send letters to everybody on the mailing list to arrive just a few days before the meeting. And there's other stuff too, but that's.
Response Public meetings on the TWRS Draft EIS were held in five cities, including Portland, Oregon. For each issue under consideration at Hanford, the number and location of meetings was carefully considered by DOE, in consultation with the Hanford Advisory Board, Ecology, EPA, and the stakeholders.
DOE and Ecology exceeded the legal requirements for public participation in the public meetings held for the Draft EIS. For example, for the Portland, Oregon meeting, two advertisements were published in the largest daily newspaper in the Portland area; two press releases were distributed to area newspaper, radio, and television stations; and the meeting location was provided in a mailing distributed to more than 4,500 interested parties and in two other mailings to 1,500 interested parties. Oregon Department of Energy mailed a letter to community leaders and stakeholders announcing the meeting and information on the meeting was provided on the Hanford Site Home Page. DOE and Ecology will continue to implement more effective means to communicate to the public and to inform the public of opportunities to participate in meetings on important issues relative to the Hanford Site. However, the TWRS public participation program met or exceeded all requirements under State and Federal regulations and used many innovate methods designed to enhance public involvement.
DOE will consider suggestions regarding publicizing meetings when planning future public participation opportunities. Regarding video meetings, DOE believes that such a format may occasionally be an effective method to expand public participation opportunities, particularly when lack of resources might otherwise preclude them. DOE welcomes any additional suggestions.
Please refer to the response to Comment number 0066.01 for more information on TWRS EIS public involvement.
Comment Number 0088.02
Porter, Lynn
Comment I have a lot of questions that I wish we could have gotten into tonight, I felt like there wasn't enough time for discussion.
Response An inherent limitation to the public hearing format is the time available for interaction between the agencies and the public. To address this concern, DOE and Ecology scheduled a one-hour informal session at the beginning of this hearings. During this time, DOE and Ecology representatives were available to interact one-on-one with the public. Further, once the meeting began, the public was encouraged to ask questions during the discussion of the EIS. This portion of the meeting lasted approximately two hours. The meeting concluded with a one-hour session during which a forum was provided for the public to submit additional formal comments on the EIS. Before the meeting ended, the moderator asked the attendees for additional comments. When no one responded, the meeting was adjourned. After the meeting was adjourned, several agency representatives remained in the meeting room to meet informally with the attendees. The information packets distributed at the meeting contained the names and phone numbers for agency contacts. The public was encouraged to contact the listed individuals for more information or to submit additional comments.
L.9.9 COMMENT PERIOD
Comment Number 0002.01
Roecker, John H.
Comment You are making a mockery out of the public comment period for the TWRS EIS. Forty-five days is entirely too short a period for public review of such a lengthy and important document. If you are truly interested in receiving public input the comment period should be extended to at least 90 days. I know this does not fit with your political agenda of announcing the selection of the privatization contractors before the November election, but the EIS process should be driven by what is technically right not by politics. This is just another example of DOE being driven by political agendas rather than technically sound programs.
Response After consultation with relevant Federal and State agencies, affected Tribal Nations, and stakeholders, DOE and Ecology determined that an extension of the comment period for the Draft EIS would not materially facilitate improved public participation in decision making regarding the proposed action. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0020.01 and 0036.07 for related information.
Comment Number 0003.01
CTUIR
Comment Technical staff of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) Special Sciences and Resources Program (SSRP) are currently reviewing the TWRS Draft EIS (DOE/EIS-0189D). We have already developed numerous draft comments on Volume One, and anticipate that we will identify additional issues in the remaining volumes. As a result, the CTUIR-SSRP requests a 45 day extension to the public comment period in order to be able to address this EIS in a manner that truly reflects the time and effort the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) have put into producing it.
Response Subsequent to the receipt of this request for an extension of the comment period, the CTUIR formally withdrew their request for an extension of the comment period. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0013.01.
Comment Number 0005.01
Swanson, John L.
Comment I have the feeling that many of my comments might be dismissed as being "unimportant" because they might not impact the gross comparison of the alternatives. My response to that might be along the lines of (a) if only gross comparisons are desired/needed, why present all the detail, and (b) if the information is important enough to present, it should be presented as accurately and unambiguously as possible.
Response No comment has been dismissed as "unimportant." DOE and Ecology believe that the comments submitted on all issues, including those not involving the "gross comparison of the alternatives," contributed to improving the TWRS EIS and all comments were included in preparing the Final EIS. NEPA and SEPA require the agencies to consider all comments provided during the public comment period, to give equal weight to oral and written comments, and to consider all comments prior to completing the Final EIS. All comments have been reproduced verbatim and responded to individually in this appendix. Copies of the documents from which comments were extracted are provided in DOE Reading Rooms and Information Repositories to permit each comment provider to easily understand how the agency addressed the comment and to ensure that all comments submitted were considered by the agencies.
Comment Number 0007.01
EPA
Comment Pursuant to its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mandated to review environmental impact statements (EIS's).
Unfortunately, our office did not receive copies of the Hanford Tank Remediation Draft EIS until yesterday. As you noted, a copy was sent to another staff member, but he does not have responsibility for NEPA review. We are therefore requesting an extension of the comment period from May 28 to June 28. This gives us adequate time to assemble a review team from other offices within EPA and perform a quality review for this very important EIS.
Response DOE submitted five copies of the Draft EIS to EPA on April 5, 1996. These copies were provided to the EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. Subsequently, copies were requested by the Region X EPA and an additional five copies were provided. After the EIS had been received, DOE and Ecology met with EPA staff to facilitate the EIS review. EPA subsequently withdrew their request for an extension of the comment period and decided not to conduct a detailed review the EIS. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0044.01 and 0042.02, which address related comments.
Comment Number 0013.01
CTUIR
Comment Since making our original extension request, CTUIR SSRP staff have become aware of critical timing considerations for the TWRS project which provide us with significant reasons why the review of the TWRS project should not be delayed, even though the lack of an extension may reduce the quality and quantity of public scrutiny that the text of the Draft EIS receives. As a result, CTUIR SSRP hereby retract our previous request for an extension of the public comment period for the TWRS Draft EIS.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the withdrawal of the request for an extension of the comment period. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0003.01 and 0013.02, which address related comments.
Comment Number 0013.02
CTUIR
Comment Finally, as a sovereign, the CTUIR enjoys a government-to-government relationship with federal and state governments, including their departments, such as DOE and Ecology. This relationship means that our consultation with the DOE is not limited to the comment periods designated for the public under National Environmental Policy Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. While we are retracting our request for an extension of the public comment period for this Draft EIS, CTUIR staff will be availing ourselves of our right to submit comments outside of the public comment period. While our review of the TWRS Draft EIS will not take the forty-five additional days we had originally requested, CTUIR staff are planning to submit our comments on Friday, May 31, 1996--three days after the close of the public comment period. We expect that Ecology and DOE will give full consideration to our comments despite their delivery outside the bounds of the public comment period.
Response DOE and Ecology are committed to ongoing consultation with affected Tribal Nations throughout the NEPA and SEPA process for the TWRS EIS. This commitment has resulted in numerous meetings with Tribal Nations and the TWRS EIS project team, as well as formal and informal consultations regarding the EIS. The formal comments on the EIS were received by the Agencies and have been given full consideration. Several issues identified in the comments have resulted in subsequent meeting and communication between the CTUIR and the Agencies to address methods by which issues could be resolved. DOE and Ecology value this consultation process and believe it has enhanced the quality of the EIS and the NEPA process. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0013.01, 0072.149, and 0036.07, which address related comments.
Comment Number 0018.01
Mannion, Don
Comment This document is very long and complex. The conduct of proper review seems to be requiring a lot more time than I initially anticipated.
I respectfully request that the review period be extended in order to assure an adequate review by such concerned citizens as myself. Thank you, in advance, for any consideration that you can give this request.
Response After consultation with relevant Federal and State agencies, affected Tribal Nations, and stakeholders, DOE and Ecology determined that an extension of the comment period for the Draft EIS would not materially facilitate public participation in decision making regarding the proposed action. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0020.01, which address related comments.
Comment Number 0020.01
Waite, Corey N.
Comment In my opinion the public comment period for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement is far too short. While I am sure that someone from the scientific community could review and comprehend this long, complex report in a short amount of time, this is a difficult task for the average reader. From my college studies in environmental science, I know that it is my right as a citizen to express my concerns, reservations, and questions regarding the actions proposed in this document as they could affect me, my family, my livelihood, and my community. For these reasons, I believe that the public should be given more time and more opportunity to review and disseminate the information contained in this very long, complex, technical report.
Response Dialogue with stakeholders at public meetings provides valuable information to the stakeholders regarding the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action, as well as the potential environmental consequences of the alternatives considered in the EIS. Further, dialogue at meetings is critical to exchanging information with the agencies regarding values, concerns, and issues that are important to the public. NEPA and SEPA contain provisions that require public involvement in government decisions that potentially affect the quality of the natural and human environment. These regulations also require that information be provided to decision makers and the public so that decisions that potentially impact environmental quality can be made in as open a manner as possible. Public meetings are an important aspect in ensuring that NEPA and SEPA are useful decision making tools for the public and decision makers.
After consultation with relevant Federal and State agencies, affected Tribal Nations, and stakeholders, DOE and Ecology determined that an extension of the comment period for the Draft EIS would not materially facilitate improved public participation in decision making regarding the proposed action. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0036.07, which addresses a related comment.
Comment Number 0024.01
Jordan, James
Comment
- The Draft EIS for the Hanford Site TWRS was received this date at about 2 p.m. Washington D.C. time. The transmittal letter states that written comments should be postmarked no later than this date, May 28, 1996. Obviously, there is insufficient time to review this report and make responsible comments. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Public Comment Period be extended to the end of June.
- JJA, a Science and Technology Consulting firm, is in the process of forming a consortium of qualified contractors to develop, fabricate and install a vitrification technology that is much safer and more technically reliable than any of the alternatives discussed to date. It is the consortium's intention to license this technology invented by Drs. James Powell, Morris Reich, and Robert Barletta to Brookhaven National Lab for development and manufacture.
- Our analysis of the health, safety and environmental risks and our analysis of the costs of conducting the TWRS campaign show that the BNL concept is substantially superior to the other concepts for removing HLW from the Hanford reservation. Accordingly, we would appreciate additional time and your assistance in including the BNL concept in your consideration of alternatives for Hanford. Specifically, we would appreciate your assistance in running our factors in the same model that you used for the other alternatives.
Response After consultation with relevant Federal and State agencies, affected Tribal Nations, and stakeholders, DOE and Ecology determined that an extension of the comment period for the Draft EIS would not necessarily increase public participation in decision making regarding the proposed action. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0020.01.
The plan to form a consortium to develop the proposed vitrification technology was not included in the scope of this EIS, and therefore is not a factor in determining whether the comment period should be extended. The Draft EIS does not address the agency procurement strategy nor does the EIS limit the agency from considering technology options that may emerge following the completion of the NEPA process. During the procurement process following the publication of the ROD, DOE would be able to consider any available technology bounded by the EIS analysis. For options not bounded by the EIS analysis, in terms of potential impacts to the environment, DOE would be required to complete a supplemental NEPA analysis of the TWRS EIS.
Because of the conceptual nature of all technologies considered in the EIS, DOE adopted a bounding approach when developing the EIS alternatives. Therefore, if during the procurement process, a technology is proposed that demonstrates lower costs and impacts to the environment than those presented in the EIS, DOE would be able to procure and implement the proposed technology. Because of this approach, and because the process described in this comment does not represent a new alternative, DOE and Ecology do not view the delay in the EIS that would be required to develop and evaluate an alternative based on this technology as necessary to improve the decision making process under NEPA.
Comment Number 0036.07
HEAL (Exhibit)
Comment The TWRS EIS has been in development for years. DOE has delayed the release of the EIS. The difficulties the agencies have had in producing the EIS are evidenced by how long it has taken to release the Draft EIS. However, the public is expected to review and comment in only 45 days -- on a document that is over 2,000 pages long.
Because HEAL has consistently held that moving the program forward is paramount, we will not protest what is an insufficient amount of time to substantively comment on the document.
Response DOE and Ecology co-prepared the Draft EIS and concurred on the scope, areas of analysis, and schedule for the EIS following consideration of public comments received during the scoping period for the EIS from January 28, 1994 through March 15, 1994. The time required to prepare the EIS was a function of the complexity of the issues addressed in the EIS.
During the past eight years, DOE has facilitated extensive public participation relative to tank waste in the following policy areas:
- Public participation in the Hanford Defense Waste EIS (1987 to 1988);
- Tank Waste Task Force (1993);
- Public comment on the renegotiation of the Tri-Party Agreement to include the revised approach to tank waste management (1993 to 1994);
- Scoping for the TWRS EIS (1994);
- Public comment on the SIS EIS (1994 to 1995);
- Privatization and related public involvement on the proposed amendments to the Tri-Party Agreement (1995 to 1996); and
- Interaction with the Hanford Advisory Board and its committees (1994 to 1996).
This public involvement has provided DOE with a strong understanding of the values and perspectives of Northwestern stakeholders regarding tank waste management and disposal. Moreover, HEAL, among others, provided comments during the scoping and comment period on the Draft EIS that encouraged DOE and Ecology to expedite the completion of the EIS, whenever feasible.
In response to comments requesting expedited completion of the EIS and in recognition of the extensive past public involvement associated with tank waste, DOE and Ecology concurred on the 45-day comment period. A 45-day comment period is the minimum time that an agency must schedule for receipt of public comments on an EIS. DOE and Ecology also recognized that public review would be limited by the 45-day comment period. To assist the public review, DOE and Ecology held five public meetings during the comment period. For these meetings, the agencies worked closely with stakeholders to provide meeting formats that would maximize interaction with the public. The EIS also was widely distributed to reading rooms and information repositories, as well as made available on the Hanford Home Page on the World Wide Web.
Finally, DOE and Ecology carefully considered all requests to extend the length of the comment period. Of the six requests for extensions received by the Agencies, two were formally withdrawn, two submitted written and/or oral comments during the 45-day period, and the remaining two requests represented general requests for more time on behalf of the public and not the individual commentor. Given that more than 1,400 interested parties received direct mailings, more than 850 copies of all or part of the EIS were distributed to interested parties, and more than 350 individuals submitted oral or written comments, the agencies concluded that sufficient time had been given and no extension of comment period was warranted. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0066.01, which provides more information regarding TWRS EIS public involvement.
Comment Number 0036.08
HEAL (Exhibit)
Comment However, we do want to state for the record the difficulties encountered in obtaining the supporting information on the EIS.
First and foremost is the difficulty in reviewing the EIS's references and supporting information. Many are missing from the information repositories. The most important references are the data packages
that support the various alternatives in the EIS. Some of these data packages were approved for public release in July of 1995 -- nine months is ample time to deliver documents to the information repositories.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the concern expressed in the comment. The agencies remain firmly committed to executing the public involvement requirement mandated by NEPA. This process includes providing all referenced documents in a readable format and timely manner.
All references and supporting documents cited in the Draft EIS were available through the following sources:
Publicly (e.g., regulations and laws)
In DOE reading rooms or information repositories in Richland, Spokane, Seattle, and Portland
By contacting the Hanford Site Tri-Party Agreement information repository.
These documents were available throughout the public comment period to support the public review of the Draft EIS. Due to the volume of the documents supporting the Draft EIS, microfilm was used to save space and resources. One reading room was not familiar with the indexing system used for the microfilm and was provided copies of the paper documents. In several isolated incidences, individuals requesting supporting documents were mistakenly told that certain documents were unavailable in the reading room. To correct this situation, several supporting documents that were used as the data basis for the Draft EIS were provided in hard copy to the reading room and directly to the individuals requesting copies.
Comment Number 0044.01
EPA
Comment We are hereby withdrawing our request for an extension of the comment period.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the withdrawal of the request by EPA for an extension of the comment period. Please refer to the responses to Comment numbers 0007.01 and 0042.02.
Comment Number 0055.01
Martin, Todd
Comment But my first point has to do with problems with the informational repositories. I spent yesterday morning hammering my head against a brick wall out at the informational repository trying to get the data packages that support the EIS. Some of them are there and some of them are not. I get paid to do this although not nearly enough but I can not imagine an interested citizen actually being able to find any of that information if they were so motivated. It was particularly troubling in that there is a very competent and professional staff at this informational repository where at the others it is difficult to find a staff person who actually knows where the Hanford documents are. So that was somewhat troubling to me and I understand that DOE and Ecology and Jacobs are working to fix that
problem and I hope it is fixed by now. Given to that I had those problems I want to thank DOE, and Ecology, and Jacobs for facilitating my getting a hold of these packages yesterday. That was very helpful.
Response Please refer to the response to Comment number 0036.08 for a related discussion.
L.9.10 MISCELLANEOUS
Comment Number 0005.03
Swanson, John L.
Comment At the May 2 hearing in Pasco, I did a poor job of expressing myself regarding the fact that "The assumptions drive the conclusions." This draft is based on MANY assumptions, which is all you could do at this point in time, but I think you could do a better job of making that clear. There generally seems to be places where the proper qualifying statements regarding assumptions are made, but those qualifying statements do not generally follow throughout the text (what is properly qualified early on, or in an appendix, is often stated as an absolute fact later in the text). Yes, it would take more words to do it right, but that should not prevent it from happening. I wonder if some of the writers do not in fact believe that some of the assumptions are really facts.
Response For each area of environmental impacts analysis in the EIS (e.g., groundwater, health, accidents) assumptions were clearly identified in the relevant appendix. Where uncertainties associated with an assumption would potentially result in significant variations in the data or conclusions presented in the EIS, an uncertainties discussion or analysis was included in the appendix. For each area of impact analysis, the assumptions and uncertainties were summarized in the relevant portions of Volume One, Section 5.0.
For the description and comparison of the alternatives, a similar process was used to inform the decision maker and public regarding assumptions and uncertainties. For the alternatives, the detailed analysis was presented in Volume Two, Appendix B, and the summary information in Volume One, Section 3.0. To enhance the decision maker and public understanding, all assumptions and uncertainties addressed in the EIS, as well as the associated calculated relative uncertainties, are now presented in Volume Five, Appendix K. This new format for addressing these issues should improve accessibility to the information and clearly communicate important interrelationships between assumptions and uncertainties. A general review of the EIS was completed to ensure that all assumptions are clearly identified and communicated to the extent practical. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0012.17 for a related discussion.
Comment Number 0027.01
Roecker, John H.
Comment TWRS Alternative Decision Making Process
DOE makes the following statement right up front in the EIS (page 1-3 to be exact), "NEPA and SEPA provide decision makers with an analysis of environmental impacts (both positive and negative) of proposed actions for consideration in decision making." Anyone following the TWRS program during the last couple of years fully realizes that the alternative selection decision has already been made. Before the ink was dry on the January 1994 re-negotiated Tri-Party Agreement, DOE was already canceling engineering and technology development work to support any alternative except the privatization effort (i.e., the Phased Implementation alternative). If DOE had truly not made a defect and unilateral (without State or Public involvement) alternative selection decision, funding for all alternatives would have been continued at an equal level. DOE has just received proposals for Phase 1 of the Phased Implementation alternative and is due award contracts before September. How can DOE possibly say the decision hasn't been made? How can DOE expect to gain public confidence and credibility when it continues to function in such a misleading manner. This EIS is nothing more than an attempt to backfit and justify a decision that has already been made on a political rather than technical basis. That kind of action continues to result in poor DOE credibility. DOE would do much better in the public confidence and credibility arena if it would simply state the truthful facts as they are and let the public judge on that basis rather than continuing to manipulate the information.
Response DOE and Ecology have presented the facts concerning the alternatives for remediation in this EIS and have solicited public comments concerning the EIS. The renegotiation of the Tri-Party Agreement and the planning for the Phased Implementation alternative has been an effort to develop the DOE and Ecology proposed plan. It is frequently the case that agencies have a proposed action developed prior to initiating the preparation of an EIS. The EIS provides an analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to it. The EIS is not prepared to justify the selection of any alternative but rather, as required by NEPA, is prepared to provide the public and the decision makers an assessment of the proposed action and its alternatives so they may take environmental issues into account where decisions are made. Because the information contained in the Draft EIS is correct, no change to the text was made. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0005.07.
Comment Number 0066.01
Stilger, Bob
Comment My main comments are about the lack of citizen participation over the past 2½ years. From what, from the answer I got to my question earlier, it sounds like the last major participation that was conducted on this was in late 1970, excuse me 1994, which came at the direction of the Nuclear Waste Advisory Council before it was disbanded. So we've gone through as 2-year period, in which what I regard as substantial changes have been made in the current plans. When I hear that the amount of waste that's due to be cleaned up by 2010 is now at 16 percent, rather than 30 percent. Almost a 50 percent reduction. I regard that as a major change. I regard the plans for privatization as a major change. The fact that these plans have been developed primarily in private, behind closed doors, once again gives me great concern. When I come to a meeting like this and have, what, maybe a 2-hour period to examine what's going on, and have contrary information, or contradictory information presented by on the one hand DOE and Ecology, and on the other hand by HEAL and Heart of American Northwest. I must say, based on past experience, my inclination is to believe HEAL and Heart of American Northwest. Jerry may have long figures, but they're frequently more accurate, and more accessible than the others that are presented. My concern is that over the past 2 years work that was done in the late 80's, and early 1990's to begin to develop more of a relationship between the public and DOE, between the public and Department of Ecology, seem to have been substantially eroded. I don't believe that people know what's going on right now. I think these changes need to be discussed more publicly, in a more accessible manner. Frankly, I can't tell from the limited amount of information that's been available tonight, whether the new plans really are the best plans since sliced bread, or are another example of backsliding and more paper work. Whichever the case is, we're not going to know until there is a more active, and more aggressive, and more thoughtful citizen participation process. Thanks.
Response Since 1994, there have been extensive opportunities for public involvement in the decision making regarding the TWRS program. The public has participated in the TWRS decision making process on the following occasions:
Scoping for the TWRS EIS in early 1994 (five public meetings), consultation with Tribal Nations, and briefings of the Hanford Advisory Board.
A public comment period on the SIS EIS and the Final EIS in late 1995 (five public meetings) and briefings for Tribal Nations, the Hanford Advisory Board, and the Natural Resources Trustee Council.
Privatization and related public involvement on the proposed amendments to the Tri-Party Agreement from late 1995 through early 1996.
Interaction with the Hanford Advisory Board and its committees from 1994 to the present on a variety of issues associated with the TWRS program. The EIS was discussed during public forums held in Richland, Washington, in Fall 1995.
Extensive mailings and public notifications have been provided by the Agencies to encourage public involvement in the NEPA process and to provide the public with information regarding the alternatives and analysis in the EIS.
Substantial changes have occurred in the TWRS program during the past two years. However, these changes have been subject to extensive public participation and have all been undertaken within the context of the Tri-Party Agreement. Because of these changes and changes that preceded the signing of the amended Tri-Party Agreement in 1994, DOE was required by NEPA to prepare this EIS. NEPA requires public participation in the decision making process for actions by an agency that could have significant impacts on the human and natural environment. The NEPA process for the TWRS program provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action.
To facilitate public participation in the NEPA process, DOE and Ecology widely advertised the opening of the comment period and the availability of the Draft EIS for review and comment.
In newspapers throughout the region.
In mailings to more than 4,500 individuals on Hanford Site mailing lists.
Two separate press releases were distributed to media outlets in the regions.
Indirect mailings to more than 1,400 interested parties.
In distribution of more than 600 copies of the EIS.
Additionally, the EIS and supporting documents were available at four public reading rooms or information repositories in the Northwest. The entire EIS was available on the Hanford Internet Homepage (http:\www.Hanford.gov.). DOE and Ecology have taken all steps possible to ensure that the complete information was provided, information was provided in as many locations as possible, and that the public had access to the level of information they needed to effectively participate in the decision making process. While more active, aggressive, or thoughtful public participation is an important goal to which both Agencies are committed, the TWRS public participation program met or exceeded all requirements and expectations under Federal and State regulations. The TWRS public participation program implemented many innovative techniques that were designed to improve public involvement.
Comment Number 0081.10
Pollet, Gerald
Comment Secondly, lastly, we are concerned that the joint state U.S. DOE EIS effort was a noble effort at saving costs and streamlining. And we feel that DOE, U.S. DOE, excuse me, has jeopardized the success of this experiment. Jeopardized it by failing to provide all relevant access, all data, excuse, me, data access for all relevant data to its partner in this EIS. The Department of Energy has been sitting on data about tank leaks. It has been sitting on data and has known that it has evidence about additional types of wastes, radionuclides, not just cesium that have moved from tanks. It hasn't shared that data, and seems to be sitting on that data in such a manner as to try to prevent it from coming out during the public hearing and comment period on this EIS. That would be extremely bad faith. It has to release that data, and maybe even do a supplemental mailing to the public, and share it immediately with its partner if it expects to ever be able to go ahead and do a joint EIS again. And we're very concerned that Ecology can't be a full partner in an EIS when its co-partner has control over all the data, and attempts to sit on it and evade public disclosure. Thank you.
Response All data used in the development of the EIS are available to the public by accessing the TWRS EIS Administrative Record. The emerging data concerning tank leaks and the depth into the soil column the contaminants have moved were identified in Volume One, Section 3.3 on page 3-4 of the Draft EIS. The mechanism for how this contamination may have moved into the soil column at a greater depth than previously believed has not yet been determined. It may have leaked down unsealed bore holes, caused by hydraulic pressure of large leaks, caused by chemical reactions that could change the rate at which the contaminants might move in the soil column, or a combination of these and other factors. Additional information analysis has been performed since the publication of the Draft EIS and the last available information was included in Volume One, Section 4.2 and Volume Five, Appendix K of the Final EIS. DOE and Ecology know of no information that has been withheld from the public.
Comment Number 0085.06
Klein, Robin
Comment It is important that a plan be implemented immediately to retrieve the tank wastes. Oh, and on behalf of a number of individuals here, we'd also like to know what your going to do with these comments, and what the response mechanisms will be. How will you be responding to our comments?
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. DOE and Ecology agree with the need to move forward with remediation of the waste at the earliest possible date.
All oral and written comments have been entered into the public record for the EIS. Transcripts of meetings and written comments have been placed in the Administrative Record for the EIS and made available for public review at DOE Reading Rooms and Information Repositories. Each comment received was also logged, categorized by topic, and responded to individually. A copy of the comment and response has been published in this comment/response document (Volume Six, Appendix L). Based on the response to the comment, appropriate changes have been incorporated into the text. The Final EIS will be provided to the decision makers to support the Agency decision.
Comment Number 0098.07
Pollet, Gerald
Comment Everyone has to get together to fight to get first of all full disclosure, secondly, to make sure that tanks are not left behind, and thirdly, that no decision makers are lulled into thinking it is safe to leave wastes behind because of this EIS and because the Department of Energy does not give its partner, the State of Washington, the data. I think this was a failed experiment in terms of the state collaborating with the Department of Energy. The U.S. Department of Energy blew it and we will oppose joint EISs in the future unless the state really puts down its foot and insists on some truth and changes here.
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. The DOE and State of Washington were jointly involved throughout all aspects of the preparation and approval of the Draft EIS and they concur in its results. Co-preparing this EIS instead of preparing two, one by DOE and one by the State of Washington, allowed the overall approval process to be accelerated and saved taxpayers money. All information concerning the EIS was shared between the State and DOE. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0081.10 for a related discussion.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
