Hanford tank waste retrieval and closure scoping hearing in Portland
by Paige Knight, Hanford Watch, Feb. 25, 2003

Thanks to all of you who attended last Wednesday's Department of Energy Scoping meeting on the Tank Waste Closure Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) hearing at the Lloyd Center Doubletree Hotel in Portland! At least 60 citizens spent the evening giving informed feedback to the DOE's proposals for this EIS. The main messages which were right on target were:

SLOW DOWN: How can the DOE write an EIS with alternatives to retrieving waste from the 177 tanks that hold 54 million gallons of waste at Hanford, seven miles from the Columbia River, when there is no data to support the alternatives for these actions? Will data and verification of the data on the supplemental/alternative technologies be out in time to support this EIS?

What happened to the third glassification melter that is supposed to be in the waste treatment plant that is currently being built to treat these wastes? The third melter needs to be put in now, not later (when no money is available). Money is tight now, it will be nonexistent later.

FASTER, CHEAPER IS NOT BETTER. Acceleration of cleanup is a good concept but not at the expense of quality and longevity of cleanup.

Does Washington Department of Ecology really stand behind their statement of this past year that the supplemental technologies that are being considered to replace glassification of the waste have to be "as good as glass" in terms of quality and durability?

Can we afford to leave technetium in the immobilized Low Activity Waste and send it to the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility in the middle (central plateau) of the Hanford site? The curries of radioactivity from technetium would dwarf ERDF four times over if not removed from the waste.

Let's call the 67 leaking tanks what they are and have been --leaking tanks. They are bad and will get worse. The new outlook from a new administration wants to assure us that they are "not that bad". There are 33 million gallons of lethal waste in tanks that are 30-50 years beyond their design life. And why would we stage waste in single shell tanks that are unfit for use?????

Given the inconsistencies of the data presented and the overly aggressive schedules being presented to the contractors and the public, we have to ask, "Is it possible to stay on schedule with the current tank milestones and produce a quality analysis???? This is an untenable schedule with untenable goals that needs to be slowed down; we want tank waste treatment, we want REAL cleanup. The "emperor" of this plan has "no clothes" -- tell it like it is.

THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETE AND IT NEEDS A SCIENTIFIC BASIS WITH VERIFIABLE DATA AND TESTING.