16 March 2010

Why you should comment & what you could say:

The public comment period on the Hanford Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement is extended until May 3, 2010.

If you haven't spoken up yet, you still have time!

What is this document?
This Environmental Impact Statement (weighing in at a mere 6,000 pages!) outlines many crucial aspects for the future of cleanup at Hanford, the most contaminated site in the Western Hemisphere. However, the document outlines the Department of Energy's plans to begin transporting offsite radioactive waste to Hanford - making Hanford a national radioactive waste dump - while also abandoning contamination in the soil.

Why should I comment?
You should comment because you are a resident of the Pacific Northwest; you care about the Columbia River; you think it is wrong to leave nuclear waste for the next generations to deal with...the list goes on and on. The public pressure that has gained momentum over this document is reaching the top officials at the U.S. Department of Energy. The more comments that are united in opposing using Hanford as a national radioactive waste dump & advocating for complete cleanup of the High-Level Nuclear Waste tanks, the stronger the message!

What could I say?
Phrase your comments however you'd like, as long as your main message is clear. We're submitting comments that:
  • Oppose using Hanford as a national radioactive waste dump;
  • Advocate for complete cleanup (clean closure) of the High-Level Nuclear Waste Tanks;
  • Urge the Department of Energy to cleanup the contamination from High-Level Nuclear Waste tank leaks and deliberate discharges.
For more in depth analysis of the Environmental Impact Statement, see Heart of America Northwest's Citizens' Guide and/or webinar slides.

How do I submit my comment?
Email your comments right now! Send them along to TC&WMEIS@saic.com.


  1. In order to 'Tell The Truth' about the American Nuclear Establishment I find using the word NOMENKLATURA helps. I write it in caps so as to emphasize it.

    According to the 'Gospel of Google'; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura,

    "The nomenklatura were a small, elite subset of the general population ..........who held various key administrative positions in all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc. The nomenklatura was analogous to the ruling class. ..... The term was popularized by the Soviet dissident Michael Voslenski, who in 1970 authored a book titled Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class (Russian: Номенклатура. Господствующий класс Советского Союза)."

    I find the word NOMENKLATURA useful because it best describes the privileged class or caste of people in the nuclear establishment of this country too.


    How are the "NOMENKLATURA" of the US, British, French, or even Canadian, etc Nuclear Establishments different than the "NOMENKLATURA" of say, the old Soviet and now Russian, the Chinese, the North Korean, etc. Nuclear Establishments?

    There really are no major differences that I can see, We are talking about similar classes or castes of privileged people. Really, the only difference I see are the briefcases they carry. They are from different manufacturers. (Eg. The NOMENKLATURA of the now defunct Chernobyl Station did not buy theirs in Los Alamos, NM)

    I also see the NOMENKLATURA of the U S nuclear establishment as an obstacle to the US public's right to know.

    Have you ever had such Dark thoughts about your country's Nuclear Establishdent?

    I have.


    Tim Seitz

  2. BREAKING NEWS: DOE is going to announce on Friday, in the Federal Register, that the comment period is to be extended 45 days, to May 3, 2010. Perhaps this also means that DOE is changing its preferred alternative away from making Hanford a national radioactive waste dump! Stay tuned for updates!

  3. And, now, for even more information - check out our *new* "Resources for Commenting" page on our website: http://www.hoanw.org/blog/index.cfm?Fuseaction=blog