|
Comments on tanks
waste EIS scoping 1. I'm concerned that some of the proposed "supplemental technologies" are only defined broadly and vaguely at present. Adequate data on how these technologies will perform, and on the environmental impacts that would result from their use, are not yet available. These data, and the full analysis of the specifics of the proposed technologies, must be included within the scope of the EIS [environmental impact statement]. Technologies must not be selected until these analyses are completed, and the EIS process and associated public involvement must not be concluded until these analyses are fully incorporated. Furthermore, it is essential that these analyses and the data that result must be reviewed by an external , independent, technically expert body such as the National Academy of Sciences. Leaving these analyses to the Department of Energy and its contractors violates the most basic principles of objective science. 2. Ms. Burandt [DOE Office of River Protection] stated tonight that some of the proposed alternatives would result in additional contamination of the groundwater, by an amount designated "delta," yet to be determined. If the EIS is to determine the environmental impact of that contamination, then it must incorporate a complete analysis on the environmental impact of both the new (delta) contamination and the existing groundwater contamination. Both components must be included within the scope of the EIS. This analysis must receive independent, external review before being used to select an alternative. 3. If the analyses described above cannot be accomplished with existing levels of knowledge, then the default alternative should be alternative number 2 (modified 1997 record of decision), not the alternative now labeled "no action." Alternative 2 is the one that accurately represents the status quo. |