In defense of the Hanford Advisory Board
By Paige Knight, Hanford Watch

I would like to respond to some of the recent e-mails [on the HW subscription email list] stating some people's feelings that the Hanford Advisory Board (HAB) has not accomplished anything, not made any significant impacts toward the kind of changes that we want to see. Let me start with stating the obvious: this is not a perfect world, we are not perfect people, and this is not the perfect board.

I feel however that the HAB has and continues to be a very important forum for those of us in this region that choose to follow it and/or participate in it to some degree. It has fostered communication between the agencies -- EPA, DOE, Ecology, even Oregon Office of Energy -- that was not occurring before its formation. We haven't seen the kind of timely changes (fast, for those of us who are impatient) and deeply significant changes that would make an obvious or the ultimate difference in cleanup. But the agencies are communicating more, some of their disagreements or "stubborn stances" are much more out in the open because the public demands to know and has representatives demanding answers, change, movement forward in a forum that brings it all to the attention of a larger interested public.

I feel that the communication between the varying and often conflicting communities (Tri-Cities, Seattle, Hood River, Portland) has been an incredibly important and continuing "product" of the HAB. Many of us on "opposing" sides have gotten to know each other over the years. There are faces and lives that go with the names. We are beginning to know that we are or could be community. Many of us have put not only a name but a face to each other. We have been able, through this forum and some incredible leadership, to find some common ground. We have come to know each other as individuals.

We have agreed that in cleaning up, the DOE must "get on with it." We want the river protected. We want no further harm to the Hanford site beyond the harm already done. We want worker safety to come first, and all of this is part of the economic development that is so important to the Tri-Cities and the rest of the region that uses the Columbia River, that grows the crops, etc. Some may not agree with the concept of economic development, but that is a fact of present life that isn't going to be overthrown overnight.

This communication among the different and differing communities has brought some coalescing and broadening of support for cleanup. I feel that cleanup is more the order of the day for the majority and that the old production mentality is really of the minority -- a loud and strong minority, but a minority nevertheless. That doesn't mean that those of us whose bent it is to do so should quit the fight against more production of radioactive materials at Hanford.

On the more specific level, HAB through the representation of the various groups has pressured DOE in so many ways:

  • We have kept the Spent Fuel program at the K-Basins in the forefront of Congress and DOE Headquarters and are finally beginning to see progress and an end of sorts in sight.
  • We have the landfill for the site's radioactive waste -- ERDF -- filling up with waste in the soil from along the river.
  • We have raised the issue of groundwater/ vadose zone contamination to a place where it is a thorn in the side of DOE and contractors and having to be dealt with eventually.
  • We have kept privatization out in front of the public as the flawed panacea for cleanup of the tank waste that it is. We have been a larger body through which the BNFL (British Nuclear Fuels) bad-news has been made more public much faster that it would have been if we had all been operating in a vacuum with no regional forum.

In essence, the HAB keeps priorities of the public to the best of its less-than-perfect abilities in the forefront of the agencies' and the public (that is interested) minds. We have educated a little more of the public. We have given, through some of our cooperative efforts, greater access to share videos (that some can see run repeatedly on cable access television), share articles, shared voices.

Our issues in this region have become more prominent both to the region and to the other parts of the DOE complex. People in other DOE sites are beginning to realize that Hanford deserves the bigger share of the annual dollars allocated to cleanup because our problems are much more serious.

We have been the forerunners of making the annual budget process more open. We, in this region have set the tone for demanding more openness --declassification for documents, protection for whistle blowers. We have been a thorn in the side of DOE headquarters on one hand, and the voice that has helped some people in the complex make the small but significant changes that have begun.

We cannot afford to stop this process of the HAB now. If we do, power will return to the few, secrecy will rear its ugly head more strongly than ever. The Board is the eyes and ears of the region, the conscience of the region. Yes it needs to improve, but we cannot afford to let it go.