Hanford tank waste cleanup forum

Rob Davis, Hanford Information Network
Oct. 31, 2003

 

Last week Hanford Information Network and Hanford Watch held the third annual Oregon River Protection Forum, a roundtable discussion of the Hanford tank waste cleanup. Representatives from the Office of River Protection, State of Washington DOE, Bechtel, CH2MHill, Hanford Advisory Board, Oregon Hanford Waste Board, Oregon State Representative, many other groups and interested public attended.

All together it was a success. Thanks to Paige and Doug for all their hard work.

The meeting was structured more like a one on one, and provided good insight into the cleanup project as well as the persons behind the paper work. The meeting intended to concentrate on the tanks, vit plant and public concerns. Of course, the meeting also diverted into discussions about regulatory issues, ground water, storage, Yucca Mtn., transuranics and concerns for DOE reclassification of waste. Below are summaries of the main four public concerns.


Four Public Issues
Hanford Cleanup Forum
October 25, 2003

1) Hanford Watch - Concerns about tank farm vapor incident (second such incident in the past two years). We hear time and time again about the need for safety to be a key at Hanford. And in general, Hanford is a safer place to work now than it was a decade ago. Part of this is because many of the 50+ year old buildings that were natural safety hazards have been cleaned up and torn down.

But from time to time an incident occurs that seems to suggest that the DOE and its contractors haven’t paid close enough attention to these issues. One such example is the recent vapor release and potential exposure of workers in the tank farms. In my mind, neither the DOE nor the contractors have been as up front on this issue as they should be. For instance, I have heard that company representatives have continued to say that this incident still “fell well within federal guidelines on releases.”

To me, that is not the point. The fact that there was any exposure at all suggests that a problem exists. Today, we need to hear #1) An admission by DOE and by the contractors that this was a serious incident, and #2) What steps are going to be taken to ensure that this does not happen again. The greater crime is letting the incident happen a second time, and we do not have any reason to believe it will not happen a third time.

2) Oregon state Representative Jerry Krummel: Concerns over the lack of clear focus, technology and resources for remediation of groundwater under the tank farms.

First, as a member of the Oregon Hanford Waste Board, I have been impressed with the progress that has been made on cleanup issues over the past few years. Obviously, when the environmental management program began in the early 1990’s, not much was happening. But now when you visit the site, you see significant progress. The pictures we saw earlier on the vitrification plant are impressive. And I know that cleanup along the River shore is also moving ahead.

I am very concerned, however, with what I see as a lack of focus and energy on developing actual deployable technologies to remediate the 1 million + gallons of tank waste that has leaked into the groundwater in the 200 area. As you know, tritium and strontium has reached the river, albeit in small quantities that are quickly diluted by the huge flow in the river. And efforts are being made to drain the remaining liquids out of the leaking single shell tanks to prevent future contamination.

But to date, there is little technology in the field to address this issue of the huge groundwater plumes originating from the tank farms in the 200 area. I would like to see not only a greater allocation of resources, but also the Department working to incentivize the contractors at the site to look to small businesses and businesses outside of the DOE complex that might have unique and potentially effective technologies to address these issues. We’ve had 40 years to develop strategies to actually intercept and treat groundwater, and as far as I can tell, little has been done. This is particularly concerning to those of us who live here, downstream from Hanford.

3) Hanford Watch - Supplemental technologies. For the past several months DOE has been discussing elimination of the second vitrification plant -- which would be needed if 100% of the tank waste would be vitrified. Although the Tri-Party Agreement states that all waste must be vitrified, some stakeholders are at least willing to keep an open mind on alternatives, as long as risk and safety and long term environmental goals aren't sacrificed.

The ORP contractor responsible for this discussion, (CH2MHill)has apparently produced reports on two of the three technologies, bulk vitrification and grout (cast stone), but not on steam reforming. Yet both of the studied technologies seem likely to leave large volumes of waste at Hanford forever, while, conceivably, steam reforming could reduce the volume of waste. Will the Department use its $15 million for studies of supplemental technologies to pursue waste reduction efforts, and is this amount sufficient given that we’re talking about technologies that are supposed to eliminate the need for a $7+ billion second vitrification plant?

4) Hanford Information Network - - Rob Davis: Reclassification of Wastes without Regulator/Stakeholder involvement. The Waste Policy Act of 1982 made it very clear that high-level waste will be stabilized and isolated from mankind. Essentially all radioactive elements that would be around for longer than a generation must be stabilized as a glass. The same guiding principles were also adopted in the Tri-Party Agreement, which demands that all high-level wastes be vitrified.

Just this past year, the Department announced a unilateral decision to “reclassify” wastes in order to avoid these stringent restrictions. Many in the stakeholder and regulator community are willing to be reasonable when it comes to actions that could save billions of dollars in the cleanup program. But we are also demanding that such decisions be risk based. We are demanding that they be based on safety for human health and the environment. We are demanding cost accountability. And we are also demanding that there be consultation and coordination between DOE and our region.

As you may know, in response to a court decision overturning the DOE efforts, DOE went to Congress to ask for legislation to overturn the court. Yet Congressman Doc Hastings used his position on the House Rules Committee to force a floor vote on this issue -- and they defeated the DOE.

We need to focus on the here and now. Focus on building the vitrification plant, on keeping workers safe, on studying supplemental technologies. If you have to change the law just to make a supplemental technology work, then that is not the way. And if you demonstrate based on long-term risk that major changes in the fundamental assumptions are needed, then you MUST consult and work with us in the region. Otherwise, we will end up in court. And we will end up with less Congressional support. And that is not helpful to any of us.

It is rather frustrating that DOE has committed resources today that continue to fight against the public safety for sake of budget numbers twenty years from now.