ML20076K386

Comments on NRC Policy Statement on Evaluation Plan for Safety Goal Development Program

ML20076K386
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	06/30/1983
From:	Jim R YAKIMA INDIAN NATION
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20076K389	List: ML20076K386 ML20076K410
References
FRN-48FR10772, RTR-NUREG-0880, RTR-NUREG-880 48FR10772-25, NUDOCS 8307080445
Download: ML20076K386 (2)

Text

9 i

CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS E-TARLI-HED PY T HE GENERAL cot'NCIL TRE ATY 0F Jt'NE e : ' Vg///ffg //fff[g/f [g//L'//

TR:hAL col'NCIL CENTENN14L KNE 9 N.?

^~

POST OFFICE BOX 151 ',?,

TOPPENS2 WASMNGTON 98945 y / g /M-[.j / June 30, 1983

, pg

,_ T N- ]

Mr. Sa::uel Chilk, Secretary y 'j M . f g' g C ew;2[S$, ec '8 y q/

Nuclear Regulatory Ccumission (g _

NC.

Washington, D.C. 20555 d4'//4) g ' .

Attention: Dennis Pathbun; Roger J. Mattson  : =,

Dear Mr. Chilk and Conmissioners:

1

.: : es = i - -- ~ j YS (g7 SUBJECT. Safety Goal Develo; ment Progra:n: Proposed Evaluation ff2 /6774)

Plan, 48 Fed. Reg.10772 (March 14,1983)

Proposed Ccumission Policy Statenent on Severe Accidents and Related Views on Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 48 Fed. Reg.16014 (April 13,1983)

Requirenents for Licensee Actions Regarding the Dispo-sition of Spent Fuel Upon Expiration of Reactor Opera-ting Licenses (48 Fed. Reg. 22730)

'Ihe Yakima Indian Nation herewith cmments on 3 proposed rules now under consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission on the following subjects:

1. Safety Goals.

2. Policy on Severe Accidents.

3. Impact of on-site storage of spent fuel followirg, the expiration of a reactor license.

On all 3 subjects the Yakima Indian Nation concurs with and supports the ccrments

~

i by the Union of Concerned Scientists, The Yakima Indian Nation wishes to add additional ccmrents which reflect the particular concerns of the Yakima Indian Nation. These ccuments cover all 3 proposed rules, and are as follows:

1. There is no reference in the proposed rules for safeguarding the Federal Treaty Rights of Sovereign Affected Indian Nations. The Yakima IndianNation has the i o@ Sacred Duty to protect the Treaty of 1855 on both n o. Ceded and Reserved Lands,and to safeguard the Health, Safety t

8 and Culture of the Yakitras.

l n Ty 9 e i 4 /M ; Tom Murley, 6113 ?!NBB eo J. Uilson, 1013-H

$@ Dennis Rathbun,1013-H if/

ggo . Tom Dorian, ELD Warren flinners, NRR og R. Page, NMSS

@$m S. Schwarz, IE

! L. a.o M. Ernst, RES / dim .s _ . , _- . y g

).'

Page Two June 30, 1983

2. Tne proposed rules fail to require dealing with each licensing issue on a case by case basis.

The Sovereign Rights of the Yakima Indian Nation cannot be properly protected by generalized ruleraking which may be sufficient protection for those d o are not Native Americans.

3. Public or Private Corporations do not behave as though they are directly and specifically bpund by the terms of the Yakima Indian Nation Treaty.

Therefore; federal rules must be based upon recognition of the Treaty Rights of the Yakima Indian Nation. .

4. The proposed rules, particularly in the PFA methodology and radioactive source term inform-ation for severe accidents, fail to take into consideration the fact that-the Yakima Indian Nation cannot be evacuated frcra its Sacred lands.

It is apparent from the present state of the proposed rules that the !EC is not informed on the Sovereign Rights of the Affected Yakira Indian Nation. The Yakima Indian Nation believes it will be both necessary and efficacious for the IGC to consult with the Yakima Indian Nation as it addresses the Yakima Indian Nation ccx:ments outlined above. The Yakima Indian Nation is ready to participate in such discussions. Please include this letter together with the attached correspondence into the record for the above proposed rules.

In the same spirit, the Yakira Indian Nation suggests that the NRC invite the Yakima Indian Nation to play a fonnal role in the proposed 2 Year Evaluation Period, so that discussions may continue during the time of testing by experience.

Sincerely, 4-2.2 d f A Russell Jim, uncilman Yakima Indian Nation

! ER:w Enclosures i

i i

l v o ,

i l

l l

c ..

CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND S ANDS

'^ . ' ' ~~

~

-

• EST AFO! HEC W THE ~. ~ ~ ~ 'CE.N Eil\L DCrNC:

Tnt 4 Y Or q ,n 9 im fgj[y.lfd ,[//f[/dff [d//,'// TNE AL CCL'.NC:

CENTtN hL JL ? E *. ?M PCSi CmCE BCA Y51 TCPPENSM. WASmNGTON 95948 January 8, 19S2 Nunnio J. Palladino, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Proposed P.ulemaking on Storage and Disposal of Nuclear 'faste, PR - 50 and 51 (Waste Confidence Rulemaking.)

Dear .'Ir. Palladino:

The Tribal Council of the Yakimas regrets that it was not possible for the Yakima Indian Nation to be invited to be present at the oral hearing on January 11, 19S2. In spite of this failure we have hope that a beginning has been made toward -

a new relationship between Indian People and the NEC, in which the case of the Yakimas is but a present example. This letter is designed to further this process of communication.

Please understand that this letter is addressed to each of the five Commissioners because the central issue involves fundamen tal policy: That the NRC on the nroblems of nuclear waste storate or discosal has not prcrerly acaultted itself of its responsibility toward Indians on tneir Reservations near present or cotential sites for nuclear storace or disposal.

First let it be understocd that:

l 1. The Yakima Indian Nation is dedicated to the safety l health, securitv. and protection of the Yakimas. The Treaty of 1S55 i

" between th5 Yakimas and the Federal Government of the United States is a vital instrument in carrying out this responsibility.

2. The Yakima Indian Nation is neither for nor against nuclear. In pursuit of #1 above, the Yakimas are for safety in i

nuclear contamination matters for the Yak: mas. ana tnerefore also for their non-Indian neirIhbors.

3. The Yakima Indian Nation has a particular and unusual stake in nuclear 'vaste saletv at llan i o rd because:

l

a. The Yakima Indian Nation in the Treat. of- 1855 ceded 9/10 of its Lands to the Federal Government, an area no.. 25C*o of the total area of the state of Washing cn, in return for Totally Reserved Lands

, and o t h er Ri  ! .;h t s'; and_ Retained Rights'within the f9F-- Ceeed Lands.

i

,~

r

o . .

1 Nuncio J. Palladino, Chairman Page Two January 8, 19S2

b. The Reservation of the Yahimas which lies only 13 miles from Hanford, is by far the largest single land holding in the Hanford area, in fact, 1 1/2 times the area of the state of Rhode Island.

c. Hanford lies within the area of Yakima Indian Nation Ceded Land.

d. For the Yakima Indian Nation the concept of evacuation because of nuclear is meaningless.

There can be no substitute for our Sacred Homeland.

4. The Yakima Treatv creceded the founding of Washincton State by many years, and tne creation or tne state has no bearing ~

on tne terms of the Treaty between the Yakimas and the Federal Government other than the PEnabling Act" in the Washington State Constitution which disallows state jurisdiction over Indians.

Wasnington State has never, and cannot now, represent the Yakima Indian Nation. The policies of the NRC have failed, to date, to take cognizance of this fact.

5. The Yakima Indian Nation believes that Acencies of the Federal Government, of which the NRC is one. have the obligation to uunold the laws of the United States. The Yakima Indian Nation Treaty Rignts have oeen upneld in the Courts of the United States as part of the Law of the Land.

6. Concerning the issue of storing or disposing oi nuclear wastes at the Hanford Reservation, the Yahima Indian Nation

[

asks that the NRC. find no confidence that Hanford can be safely useu as a nuclear waste repository because:

a. There is a lack of understanding cf Yakima Indian l

Nation Rights.

i I

( b. There is present conflicting and inconclusive scion tific argumen t regardin>z the ?;eologic media and tecnnology for Hanford.

c. There is strong managerial and scientific l evicence that there is present contamination I

at Hanford which is not yet under control.

d. There is a need to prevent further contamination to Yaki:na Indian Nation Lands and to the Columbia l River aver which we hold Treaty Rights.

! + <- .

e. Frce the fact that Hanford is presently contamin-ated, it does not necessarily follow that a " land use policy" of adding to that contamination is

! sound.

~

Nuncio J. Palladino, Chairman Page Three January S, 1932

7. The Yakimas consider that the NRC cractice of limitinc announcements to entries in :ne Federa: ?.mzister of NRC procecures-on nuclear waste issues in an area involving the vital interests of the Yakima Indian Nation is not only inadequate but reveals a lack of understanding on the part of the NRC of the Guaranteed Rights of the Yakima Indian Nation. This is particularly true when the NEC not only had no evidence that the Yakimas were already alerted, but also had no policy or practice of addressing'those Rights peculiar to Treaty Tribes. The Yakimas are accustomed to spending their limited resources and time on other areas, such as the ever-present need to protect their Fish or their Water Rights. The Yakimas believe that it is encumbant upon the NRC to assure that the Yakimas are not misjudged in the protection of their own Rights by errors of omission on the part of the NRC.

8. The Yakima Indian Nation has both the right and obligation to be an integral part of the scussions and planning concerning the use of the Hanford Reservation land when subjects such as nuclear waste disposal are at issue. It is nart of the resnonsibility of the NRC to see to it that the Yakimas a re invited anc neined to take cart in such discussions.

The Yakimas are aware that early in the history of nuclear the extent of danger from radiation was seriously underestimated.

P.'e know of failures to properly protect citizens from nuclear radiation. In recent years with nuclear danger better understood and the staggering problem of nuclear waste disposal apparent, areas far from urban centers have been looked to as the place to store and dispose of nuclear wastes. These are among the areas where Indians hold Treaty Rights from the Federal Government. These are among the areas where beliefs other than the Judeo-Christian hold sway among the People, beliefs that the NRC must equally consider and protect.

The Yakima Indian Nation asks each Commissioner of the NRC to:

1. E:: amine the policies of the NRC which have ignored Yakima Indian Nation Rights and alter those policies by,

2. Inviting the Yahima Indian Nation to join with the NIIC in proceedings covering tne future of IIanford; and

3. Do so before making any binding decisions now concerning !!anford and nuclear waste s:crage or disposal. ,

g- t-

Nunaio J. Palladino, Chairman Page Four January 8, 1932 As was stated in our opening paragraph, the Tribal Council of the Yaki. mas has written this letter with the intent of developing productive communications "eith the I;RC. As in all such efforts a constant ingredient must be geodwill. It is important for the Commission not to misread our efforts to maintain goodwill. The Commiss?.on should understand that unless the Commission takes immediate, aggressive steps in response to the reasonable approach of this document, the Yakima Indian Nation will seek other means to prevent any continuation of the past abuses of the Rights and respect owed to a Sovereign Nation.

Please include this letter as part of our statement submitted for the Nuclear Waste Confidence Procedure Records (Parts 50 and 51 V,'aste Confidence Rulemaking) dated January 6, 1982. and address your response to Mr. Russell Jim, Trib al Councilman at the above address (telephone (509) S65-5121).

Sincerely, b/l_-, .

. f d i i Johnson Meninick, Chairman Yakima Tribal Council

~

&M' Russell Jim, Councilman Yakima Tribal Council

$' q

~

. y

. ' . ' '. ~

~ es Ae:.:suro sy nts

• MER E G U #O MM - - - ----

^ '

NIS!NI III'5W bE!~'II 5

c 5^N $ t 5 :$ ?$sss POST CFFICE GOX 151 TCPPENISM. WASHINGTCr4 9a943 January 6, 1982 Mr. Samuel Chilk, Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Marshall Miller _

Subject:

Proposed Rulemaking on Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste, 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51 (Waste Confidence Rulemaking).

The Yakima Indian Nation requests that the Commissioners accept and consider as part of the Nuclear Waste Confidence Procedure Records the following words and ideas from the hearts of our People Please be advised that this Tribe was not conquered by war. In the Treaty of 1855 we agreed to cede to the Federal Government but did not give up all our Rights to more than 1/4 of the present state of Washington. Our Totally Reserved Lands (13 times the size of the state of Rhode Island) lie just 13 miles from Hanford and Hanford itself is on our Ceded Lands. Our paramount concern is for the health and safety of the future generations of our People and those who live amongst us.

There is apparent debate among experts on the safety of the geologic site at Hanford. We believe that the Commissioners should appreciate that the value system of the Yakima Indian Nation expresses a unique relationship with Nature:

1. The Religion of the Yakima Indian People is inex-tricably bounc up in our Fooo Rights and our Mineral

. Rights. The salmon and the waters of the rivers and streams are.both vital parts of our constitutionally protected right to practice our religion.

2. United States Legal Precedent includes reference to Nulsance Law ylhich ceclares that a neighbor does not have the right to pollute or violate the area beyond his own borders with noxious and noisonous elements which do violence to the use and injoyment by neighbors of their own lands. This is particularly true where the pollpter is the more recent land h, older in the area.'

ptL

,'sff ,

) .. o

?!r. Samuel Chilh, Secretary Page Two January 6, 1982

3. Environmental Imonct Studies (which include Environ-mental := pact Statements, Safety Evaluation Reports, Socic-economic Impact Studies, and others) to date f rom both "pijblic ~and priva te organlaat ;ons w 2.fhTn the Columbia River Basin area have consistent 13 failed to look beyond the Jn'ieo-Christinn sccio-economic heritage when investigating potential nuisances to neighbors from a given undertaki.ng. The result has been repeated Nuisance Trespass on the Sovereign Rights of the Yakima Indian N:ition guaranteed by the Treaty of 1855.

Our Tribe possesses special knowledge and concerns that we believe are a valuable resource which the Ccmmission should not overlook. We request therefore that the Commission grant us enough time to assure that your pronosed rules are comprehensive enough to cover our concerns and values.

Sincerely, a

..-/ .<_ -ma Johnson .'leninicx, Chairman Yakima Tribal Council

.f ~')

,i MW Russell Jim, Councilman Yakima Indian Nation l

l l

1 l

4 o ,

1 l

l I

l

.. . . .~.

. , o .

.u=nsy :c CONFEDERATED TRIBES At?D SA!;DS c:: :rti.:. c :::en.

. r w . .T.: s. :1:.:,

O ws.2.; a;r.s.:s:s ll:fi::: ft:,&1: p,-lh,j:

?.:av ::a;:n.

POST Cm:C BOX 151 TOPPEMS 4. WASmtJOTo J StS45 v w , , , --

.e-.--.y ,o,

-. ,c.80

-- - ~ . .- _ _ _ _ -- -

2 ha. =----,

---

s,o.

-- C.a.- : =,..

Senate Sub-Cc:=ittee on Nuclear R e s- .. , , 4 rv ,

-Co a

. .eo. o n v , \. <-.w - n , a. , . , ,- an-a Pu.lic n . norks ..

7i,skd--.

- ---3 - , D.C. 00o' O D a = .-u r .je --- -

et.3 c,,ce -. . wac 4, . a-t ca.e-s w,. w o. ,.. .t.- u n. o'. yo".

Nuclear Waste Regulation Bill : night be helped by scoe bach-ground info =ation and documenta:ics on :he Federr.1/ Indian

.o.n ,,

. . . 4. m, e aew4m p c..., d b y s nv..e G, o. n o. . c. .9 ohso..,..4n,s c. w J

.o- .su<nk k

oa he-o.

.,.s n n. -<o

.a- <n

.. o l.. - i c . . e

. -- . o e .we e -w,.,. .e. - ,,,

. . t, . , c c 0 .w . c % s..-

- - . . .--a.e4 eoaen 4s. Yi k' -- i .#v--^ ' ' o , s 4 n c ' "- d a s

. - .e. ca- a.

.'a. - a ' e . e n-%a s '. o -

) .e, a.sn.e suudy.

.t. . V. .- o_ r o s 6. < . 3, . i..c .- ,. , , . w e-- .e., o-...

1. 2 be n a sc.,. u,,,, -u-- o.e , ome cc -e.,n ,-4_, - D e c. .e _w4c e-- w so.,.,..

w1:n sovereignty in :ne Western Herisphere s sted that ludigeous Indian people retained an Inheren:

Sovereignty over .their Lands and that the European powers were therefore obliged to negotiate with them over issues of sovere-gary.

2. The Constitutional Convention by its firs; ac conf 1 med that Indigenous People had Eights :0 persons and property.

=.

a m.ho. Co, -a .<. ,,.4-,,, --u - C. a a, n s-

. ~

mw e . wa. d a. . ' ' / c ---* e Dn,' --- S c . a. . aau4 n . . w" b eo--a '

suprece w1:nin tne area of 1:s sovereign y is generally well understood.

2. The Federal / State / Indian Nation Tri-Sovereirntv j es tanlisnec by our Founcing Fathers wnere I n t:.1=

+ " -w o *s k a. s ch e-a. . o '+ G o , a -- a -.

l S o ve.-a. .d .- -- : --sa -

is not.so widely' understood. For a good description o.'. n co

s..ea..-ved T - .k.e er. I - d- 4.-' n .S o v e ".--u-w:

. - a 4 - -- C "a-4 e '. .

Justice ?/.arshall's decision in Worcester v. Ceorcia, 6 p ; 515 (1332) is the recogninec author 1:7 as g

• A

x.,

The Eencrable Gary Hart

,.eo. - _.. .,c, ,oco Page Two ,

to the Indian Reserved Rights of control over ,

their destiny and their Lands. Also see yederal Indian LawrSepartment of Interior, ( 2?SS7-- - -- --

Cr. apter II and VI, and M. Price, Law and the American Indian, Bobbs-Merril, (1973) Cnanter I.

Tne Reference Section, Library of Congress is be key resource center. .

C. Lands Ceded and Reserved bv Indians:

1. The Treaties: Under the Tri-Severeignty Syste=

of Government (A, 2 above) Indian Nations a=d Tribes established control over their own People and occupied Lands. By Treaty or other agreemen with the Federal Government Indian Nations and Tribes ceded some of ;he lands they occupied to the unitec

.e ete.tes and agreed to become dependent

.us-, . e o .. s .a

,m,_ e. .T .o..-,.4- - .v--- .

_1u.

2. Ceded and Reserved: Just as any grantor may reserve certain r gn:s in the lands granted and reserve the total con rol over use of certain lands not

.con

..veyec. so cid Ine indians grant cr cede certain lands to the United States reserving certain Richts in these Ceded areas and reserve total use and occupancy in Ibe Lands not granted or Ceded. These Lands not ceded are co==only called Indian Reser-varions. The Reserved Rights of Use in areas Ceded

are just as real. The Rights.that Ind'ian Tribes j have in regards to both areas exis

not by grant l from the United States but by the fac: that Ibey

! were Reserved bz this Sovereign Power. See United l

States v. Winans, 198.-US 371 (1905).

D. Reserved Richts:

l 1. The Richt to' Control Their Internal Affairs was reservec oy Incian Trines. By acnnowlenging l

dependency on Ibe United States, Indians sub-mitted their power to make war, enter into Inter-national agreement and to control Inter-Tribal l

fcreign commerce.

t ,

I

2. Indian Warural Resources: / Indians agreed ..to place

some of Ibear natural resources in a trust relation-shin. with the United . States. The c her,.Inheren

Sovereign' Powers were retained. See Unithd States W.

Wheeler, 435 US 313 (197S).

O .

. O n .. O a

. . s: .

The Ronorable Gary Eart February 19, 19SO Page Three

• R. Areas 6f Justifiable Indian Concern:

1. The Issues of Use: Any use concorr.s.us that may

-- inter:ere c:n ne exclusive Right or Use Righ: W e in either our ctally Reserved Lands or Lands in which we have Reserved Rights. These Rinhts are Senarate and Anar: frcm anv richts of control or

. 2nterest a State mav have in Ice same area, please see: Unitec States v..Abranum. Irritation District 236 F2c 321, Cert. ceniec 342 US 965; 330 F2c 597, 335 F2d 307, Cer: denied 381 US 924.

United States v. Washinrion, 47 LU 497S (1979).

2. The Issue of Bo b Ouanti r and Quali:v in Reserved Ricnts:

Certain1r nuclear contari 2:ic is :be greates:

nrea: to cuality in our Reserved Rights. These Rights concerning water and its products are se out in United States v. Adair No 75-914 (U.S.D.C.

Cregon) opinion Citec Seprecoer 27, 1979. United States v. Anderson Nc. 36*3 (U.S.D.C. Eastern District, hasnington) opinion dated July 23, 1979.

We trus; that the above st mary will help in your presen-tation to others of points cade in our letter of yebruary 4, 1980 concerning any Nuclear Waste Disposal Legislation. Let me close with these broad convictions which gave rise to those. points.

1. Indian Severeign Authority must be brought into Nuclear Kaste Disposal Planning at the very beginning so that the various ri,ghts and prerogatives involved can be ' negotiated in the light of established Tri-Severeignty Gover==ent.

2. Indian Right to Non-Concurrence =ust be separate and apart frc= any State.

3 1

3. Congress must be the sole mediator of dispute.

4. Congressional stipulations as to conditions which control the inclusion of Indian Sovereira Authorities must be sufficiently specific that ad=instrators of the Law wi11 exercis'e'no undue influence.

e

.- e ,,. , _-- -

, .#< 'e. .

The EOnorable Gary Ear:

r e b .-"-- e ,- - la, Ic.^0 c n *.abe .v O,, .-

I ~.'"*. -- .0 ' .'. 9. . v o u , G a ,. , .'. 0 ". ", O u..

. . a" . ' . . w -

e .d. ". . *he c -s

. w e , d O.C ,.,. . . .e ,.,. . ._, '. 4 w 4. .e. . c ,.,. O .e. T nd4 .

e c ...

. n.. c. 4. ,. ., c. ..4 - w . s . T. .e < .L.

is necessary ever and ab...e..ove th.s.e source caterial identified . - . - - - - -- - -

above, Or if further discussion is necessary after your sta'f -

w,- -

b e ....

. . .e . .4 , , ., j , ,. .e .. .e. . we . v

i. - o .e,C ,. t30 .

- .. l .: ., . n d 4 .-

- "'.'..~..e

1. % .+. 4 0 .". . . 'O

. b, e C .# e v e '. .

". .'. .e. c.,

. -- # e '. '

.

• C e 4 "- VO"". .# d. " o e .#. .#v.

, .. - ^ * *..e.

On - b e.b. ,7 .# -

O.# s%.97 c. 4 0.* .4C e n. C 4 6.~a3a.

4n

' Sin cerely yours ,

Oh W.MYg u.,,,se,.,

. - - I<-- , C O . .--., C .4. .,._.. .,...

v.1 1. 4 .,. T. ., ,:- - .4.., n t.. c. . . 4. O .,.,.

r.J-e / ,

.=ebrua: 7 4,

ac,Osure: Le::er c 1950 l

l l

I e

I i

i e

h l h ' 8 s

t s

- - - - - - - - - - - - - '~

-Q--- - - . - , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i .

CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS  !

ESTAP;.N HED BY THE , . CENERAL COUNCH. '

I TREATY OF JUNE 9. Ie53 [d/'////d [/d/d// [dN.W/ TRmA . COUNCH. l-

! CENTENNIAL JUNE 9.1955 i

POST OFFICE BOX 151 j TOPPENISH, WASHtNGTON 96348 i

August 30, 1982 '

l i

1,1r . G. C. Sorenson 11anager --- -'

Licensing Program i Washington.Public Power '

,...,..~..

! Supply System.

I' P.O. Box 968 3000 George Washington'Way Richland, WA 99352 , . , ,

^ '

l

Dear !.r. Sorenson:

- S -

The Yakima Indian Nation wishes you to be aware of the following: ., ,' .

l -

1,__

, 1.) As previous correspondence shows and details:

, . ,.~ . . ~ .

J' .

a. The Yakima_ Indian. Nation was ignored in all j of the licensing proceedings and rules under the NRC for.WPPSS:II. nuclear power plant.

q' s .: J,

b. The Yakima Indian Nation letter of September 22, 1981, to Dr. Rajender Auluck of the NRC complied with NRC rules for participation in the draft EIS .for.WPPSS II..

\ ,

M ,

e i c. Weeks after the . final EIS went for publication, l a f act of which we were not and could not be aware, you made yourself available for a meeting.

I d. When the meeting was held between your staff and l

our staffpersons below Tribal Council level, we learned for the first time, that the final

, Environmental Statement was already published--

so that the meeting became meaningless.

e. After the meeting NRC staff and WPPSS staff distorted the content of that meeting so as

! to strengthen the contention that NRC and

! WPPSS had in fact lived up to NRC rules--a

! contention the Yakima Indian Nation roundly denies.

g', 5- ,

i f

Mr. G. C. Sorenson Page Two August 30, 1982 2.) Your letter of July 13, 1982, to which this letter is a response, states that the Yakima Indian Nation

" Commented" on the WPPSS II EIS. This misrepresen-tation of'the trutb is a continuation of the pattern of events to date summarized in number 1 above.

For the Yakima Indian Nation to address the significant adverse impacts of WPPSS I, the NRC and WPPSS must first go back and truthfully address the still unresolved issues regarding WPPSS II and the Yakima Indian Nation.

This letter or any part of it is not to be used by you as a " Comment" in your WPPSS I EIS.

Sincerely, j ' t z.+dl' Russell Jim, Councilman Yakima Indian Nation cc: Nuncio Palladino Richard Black I 6- ,

- - - m

~

t

• 's, CONFEDERATED TalBES AND BANDS q sru HED in THE cr.N rnAL cot:Nr:::

5tyw oy :t Ny a .s V6lldilltl .Illn{itlIl ,YtlllCil TumAL t OL*Nr:t.

cEN1ENN! 4L !L NM .- M POST CFFiCE 80x 151 TOPPE*.:SM. W ASNMTC'4 92948 September 22, 19S1 Dr. Rajender Auluck Director, Divison of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Dear Dr. Auluck:

The Tribal Council of the Yakima Indian Nation asks that, before your office approves the WPPSS Environmental Impact Statement, WPPSS be required to consult concerning the content of that statement with the Yakima Indian Nation.

We base this request upon the following facts:

1. The Yakima Tribal Reservation, one and one-half timesthe size of the State of Rhode Island, has a border only 13 miles from the Hanford Reservation, the site of the FPPSS plant.

2. The Yakimas are a Sovereign Nation with a Treaty with the Federal Government which guarantees to the Yakimas forever, particular securities, rights, and privileges in return for vast lands ceded to the Federal Government in 1855,

3. The Treaty also gives the Yakimas certain rights and privileges over Ceded Lands, part of which lie within the Hanford Reservation.

4. The religious and cultural beliefs and practices of the Yakimas, protected by the Treaty and Supreme Court decision, express a sacred, unique relationship with Nature and the Environment.

. 5. In spite of all the foregoing, none of the elected representatives of the Yakima People were ever consulted by the authors of the WPPSS Environmental Impact Statement.

6. A careful reading of the WPPSS Environmental Impact Statement reveals that:

a. The only reference to Indian people in the document is a vague reference to "Wanapuus",

. unidentified and' as a general term 'of' only fk4 historic interest, and even then in an gf[f insensitive way.

5

't.

Dr. Rajender Auluck Page Two September 22, 19S1

b. The document ignores the existence of the Yakima Indian Nation, its vaste adjacent Tribal Treaty Lands, and its particular cor:: erns for the protection of its guranteed rights and privileges.

c. The document in its brief reference in the text to " Indians" is behind the times, and reveals no sensitivity to. Indian Civil and Human Rights which today have become a matter of course in legislation and court decisions.

The Tribal Council asks, in addition , that your office consult with us before setting a time and place to begin discussions between the Yakima Indian Nation and the NRC licensing agent and the representatives of WPPSS. Please contact Mr. Russell Jim, Tribal Councilman, at (509) 865-5121. Thank you for your consideration Sincerely, E

^

fjh4:, YN

/ Jolinson Meninick, Chairman

/ Yakima Tribal Council Concur: j

[d v[5 "% CL/g

}'LeonardTomaskin,

') . . ,

llC h b5ff Chairman Yakima General Council

=

1 O

e i

h 6-

. _ - _ _