Draft Hanford Sitewide Permit renewal revision 9A

19 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/06/26 @ 3:06 PM
There is concern that the Draft Rev. 9A Permit does not clearly conform to the requirements of Chapter 173-303 WAC. In multiple instances, the draft appears to incorporate extensive Part B application material, engineering-level detail, generator inf...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Justin Case

10/05/26 @ 8:55 PM
I see a few comments about outdated material; this doesn't inspire confidence that what is provided meets regulatory requirements. I just don't think 120 days is sufficient for an individual to review this draft permit and compare all parts of it to ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Johnny C. Lately

10/05/26 @ 8:14 PM
Regarding OUG 10 (Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant), why does table III.10.F.A in Revision 8C contain more information than table III.10.F.A in Revision 9A? It seems as though Ecology is putting out outdated material for public comment. It make...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Earl Teioume IX

10/05/26 @ 7:56 PM
Please explain why this site is subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when it is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) making it subject to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCL...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Esther Kronenberg

9/23/26 @ 8:44 PM
I am opposed to using the outdated Tank Closure and Waste Management EIS to guide the work that desperately needs doing at the Hanford site. There are many changes that have been revealed since then that must be assessed.

Besides the failings of th...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Derek Dexheimer

9/23/26 @ 11:30 AM
No new environmental impact statement has been prepared for any of the 52 units and the many risks, delays and changes that have been revealed since the US Department of Energy's (USDOE's) 2012 Tank Closure and Waste Management EIS. Rather, Ecology a...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Glass

9/22/26 @ 10:45 PM
Protect our water from leaking nuclear waste runoff.
No attachments

Comment From: Guinevere Godsdóttir

9/22/26 @ 10:13 PM
Hello,

I am a Seattle resident who is deeply concerned about the ecological disaster currently unfolding at the Hanford Nuclear Site. The United States has been aware of the inevitability, if nothing was done to prevent it, of Hanford becoming a maj...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Nez Perce Tribe (Anthony Smith)

9/18/26 @ 10:32 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: John Price

9/03/26 @ 10:53 AM
The III.Y.3 permit condition concerns Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) located with the US Ecology facility, which is located within the Hanford site. The III.Y.3 condition must be modified because the III.Y.3.a.ii condition commits Ecology to m...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/14/26 @ 3:37 PM
The 324 Building should be removed from the permit. The building is a mess. It is being remediated under a CERCLA action anyway, so what is the point for closing the building under the permit?
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/14/26 @ 3:32 PM
When the Waste Treatment Plant (OUG 10) was added to the Hanford Dangerous Waste Permit in 2002, Ecology stated that the interim compliance schedule was established to provide Ecology with design documentation needed for construction to proceed. Ecol...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Cal Q. Later

8/13/26 @ 7:27 PM
Why did Ecology provide outdated files for the permit? Attachment 4, Hanford Emergency Management Plan (HEMP), provided for public comment is Revision 8 (see the upper right corner of the document); while attachment 4 of Rev. 8C of the Hanford Site P...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/12/26 @ 7:10 PM
It is difficult to give appropriate and accurate feedback when the provided draft permit information is outdated. One example is the Central Waste Complex (OUG 6) contains references to the Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (CUG 47), which is m...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/03/26 @ 1:01 PM
Ecology must establish a closure schedule for the 324 Building Closure Unit Group 31 (CUG-31). Applicable TPA milestone M-089-00 sets a Due Date to complete closure as "TBE in accordance with M-089-06" and there is no milestone M-089-06 in the curre...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/03/26 @ 12:58 PM
The closure plans for the 216-B-10 Pond and the 216-S-10 Pond include section "H.6 Schedule for Closure." Both closure plans defer closure to the CERCLA remedial action for the 200-OA-1 OU. There's no efficiency in deferring closure because the clo...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/03/26 @ 12:31 PM
Ecology must provide a closure schedule or update TPA milestone for closure of the 216-B-3 Main Pond system and/or 216-S-10 Pond and Ditch. The applicable TPA milestone M-037-22 Due Date is "Submit concurrently with M-015-38B" and M-015-38B was dele...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/03/26 @ 12:26 PM
Ecology must provide schedules for closure of the 216-A-29 Ditch, 216-A-36B Crib, 216-A-37-1 Crib, and/or 216-B-63 Trench. The applicable TPA milestone M-037-20 Due Date states "Submit concurrently with M-015-92B" and M-015-92B was deleted from TPA ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous

7/26/26 @ 9:14 PM
1. AY-102 is unfit for use and it is unrealistic that clean closure standards can be met. Ecology is going to have to Hanford specific rule making in order to address closure of the tank. There is no mention of that in the draft AY-102 permit or the ...↓
No attachments