Notes on public meeting held at the Seattle University Heights Center on July 31, 2013 by the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) at Hanford to explain planned cleanup of Hanford 300 Area and solicit public comment.

Part 4 of 4

          I mentioned that I had worked with the Yakima Indian Nation around 1980 on finding a nuclear contractor to help them monitor the Hanford cleanup and that USDOE were still fumbling around trying to clean up the mess thirty years later. I said that the USDOE at Hanford had been dishonest, incompetent and had repeatedly broken the law. I mentioned the mess with the leaking tanks of waste and the vitrification plant project that had to be halted because of poor design. I pointed out that after all these years they are still not sure of exactly what is buried under Hanford and what other surprises like the rising uranium levels might be waiting for us down the road. I insisted that five years was too long to wait to see if their wonderful solution worked and that the situation needed to be monitored constantly. There were echoes of the Magnuson Park arguments with respect to the safe levels to leave in the soil. I suggested that the USDOE and the EPA should have a chat with the Navy and point out that they didn’t believe that the level the Navy wants to leave at Magnuson Park was safe for human beings. I finally said that I had no confidence in their planning, their execution and their honesty with respect to this cleanup plan.

          Representative Gerry Pollet was the last person who had signed up to comment. He went over some of the important issues such as the safe level of radiation after a cleanup. While the Hanford rep insisted that they were working at the one cancer in ten thousand level, Gerry pointed out that their published documents still had the eight cancers in ten thousand level. He said that the state planned to permanently raise the level of Columbia and that there was no mention of the problem of more uranium being released by the higher level. There are rules about having industrial levels closer than two hundred feet from a recreation use riverbank and yet the designated industrial area in the 300 Area was much closer than that. He also took issue with the idea that the only way to control the dust and insure the safety of the workers would be to spay large amounts of water on the ground. He said that there were other ways of controlling dust that would not result in washing more uranium into the soil and he asked why none of them had been mentioned or explored. He also complained that the definition of the industrial area was much too broad and covered parts of the 300 Area that were not eligible.  He asked about a consultation with state officials that the Hanford people were not able to provide. He remarked that the EPA had made earlier statements with respect their authority to override USDOE plans at Hanford and that he was disappointed that the EPA had apparently abandoned their position and accepted the USDOE plans.  In closing, he insisted that this plan was not well-thought out and that it should be seriously reconsidered and revised before implementation. He lamented the fact that the Washington State Department of Ecology was not participating in the meeting other than as moderator and expressed the hope that the WSDOE would step in and exert their legal authority with respect to the clean up. He also said that the Hanford USDOE plan failed to meet state legal standards as required by Federal law.

        I got a real sense of déjà vu all over again as I watched the meeting proceed. Just as at the Magnuson Park meeting, a department of the Federal Government failed to publicize a meeting well, failed to allow adequate time for their presentation and public questions and comments, failed to answer pointed and relevant questions adequately, left important information out of their presentation, failed to explain why they were not following the state and Federal laws with respect to such cleanups and really seemed to be conducting the meeting more to reassure the public that all was well as opposed to sincerely wanting public input to their process. 

For more information on 300 Area at Hanford:

Article from Hanford USDOE about 300 Area

Article about Hanford 300 Area from EPA

Pacific Northwest Laboratory article about Hanford 300 Area

Video of 300 Area cleanup plan

Radioactive groundwater at Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant has likely risen above an underground barrier meant to contain it, presenting an “emergency” that the plant’s operator is not sufficiently addressing. reuters.com

General Atomics has announced that it is among the small modular reactor developers seeking funds from the US Department of Energy. It has submitted its Energy Multiplier Module, a helium-cooled high-temperature reactor. world-nuclear-news.org

Xcel Energy’s Monticello nuclear plant returned to full power Saturday, officially ending an outage for major upgrades and an extended power uprate that began in March.  nuclearstreet.com

British anti-war campaign group the Stop the War Coalition has in a video claimed that Britain’s Queen Elizabeth is one of the richest women on earth and much of her profits are from arms trade including the notorious depleted uranium trade. presstv.ir

Ambient office = .064 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .083 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = .115 microsieverts per hour

Red seedless grape from Costco =  .168 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .088 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .066 microsieverts per hour

Notes on public meeting held at the Seattle University Heights Center on July 31, 2013 by the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) at Hanford to explain planned cleanup of Hanford 300 Area and solicit public comment.

 Part 3 of 4

        The question and answer period came next. A rep from Hanford Challenge, a non-profit group, brought up the question of thorium. He said that he had found high levels of thorium while exploring the 300 Area and that there was a legend on the map that said thoria trench. The geologist said that they found no significant levels of thorium on the site but did not explain about the trench.

        Someone questioned the ability of the DOE to maintain fences and guards over a period of decades and asked about the possibility of changes to the industrial zoning. They were assured that DOE would be able to do it safely.

        Washington State Representative Gerry Pollet who is also with Heart of America Northwest raised the issue of the acceptable contamination level. He had an argument with one of the Hanford reps who insisted that they were going for the one in ten thousand cancers and not the eight in ten thousand cancers that had been in one of the Hanford documents about the project.

         Following the Q & A, came the time for formal comments. I always find it strange at this type of meeting that the formal comments are on the record but the Q and A section is not on the formal record. If I were cynical, I would think that the people answering the questions were reluctant to have their answers on the record.

         A man with the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility brought up the fact that there was no mention of the possibility of biological reconcentration of the uranium by plants and animals downriver from Hanford.

         The man from Hanford Challenge brought up the thorium again and pointed out that there was definitely high levels of thorium in the 300 Area that needed attention.

         The Native Americans in the area were brought up. Commenters complained that the Indians had treaty rights to use that land and fish the river and they were engaged in those activities right now while the uranium level was unsafe.

          Current recreational use of the riverbank by boaters, fishermen, families with children, windsurfers, kayakers and hikers was mentioned. The Columbia River periodically rises and resoaks the soil with containing the uranium. The river then drops back to a low level and the groundwater flows out of springs on the riverbank. This groundwater would carry unsafe levels of uranium, exposing the recreational users.

           Another man with the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility brought up the fact that over eight trillion dollars had been spent creating nuclear weapons at Hanford. The billion dollars that was tossed around as a figure for the cleanup was far too little to do the job quickly and properly but was a tiny fraction of the money spent by the DoD on weapons. A woman said that would seem that the Defense Department could spare a few billion out of the five hundred billion defense budget to clean up their mess at Hanford.

           There were several comments from Heart of America members questioning the ability of DOE to maintain control of the fenced of industrial areas in the 300 Area for decades. One member insisted that the cleanup should be done thoroughly and quickly. Another complained about the publicity and low attendance.

For more information on 300 Area at Hanford:

Article from Hanford DOE about 300 Area

Article about Hanford 300 Area from EPA

Pacific Northwest Laboratory article about Hanford 300 Area

Video of 300 Area cleanup plan

TEPCO said Friday that an estimated 20 trillion to 40 trillion Becquerels of tritium from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant may have flowed into the Pacific Ocean since May 2011. japantimes.co.jp

If radiation is in the plants and insects around the fallout zone of the Fukushima Daiichi power generating station than it’s here to stay.   surfbirds.com

Ur-Energy has started production at its Lost Creek in-situ leach uranium mine in Wyoming after receiving final clearance from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. world-nuclear-news.org

Pakistan has said nuclear disarmament is feasible and should be pursued in a universal manner, echoing the mayor of Hiroshima’s call for peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons ahead of the 68th anniversary Tuesday of the atomic bombing of the city. globalpost.com

Ambient office = .072 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .079 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = .052 microsieverts per hour

White onion from local grocery store =  .103 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .139 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .021 microsieverts per hour

Notes on public meeting held at the Seattle University Heights Center on July 31, 2013 by the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) at Hanford to explain planned cleanup of Hanford 300 Area and solicit public comment.

Part 2 of 4

A Hanford rep started off the official presentation with a few slides of the site and a very general overview. Apparently six alternatives were being considered. They were

1. Do nothing
2. Watch closely
3. Dig up and dispose of some dirt and phase in use phosphates to bind the uranium in the soil in above the groundwater, watch closely

3a. Dig up dirt and use phosphates to bind the uranium in the soil over entire area of concern, watch closely

4. Dig down to level of the top of groundwater when the river is lowest in some areas and dispose of dirt in, watch closely
5.  Dig down to level of the top of groundwater when the river is lowest in broad areas and dispose of dirt in watch closely

        Following that intro, a Hanford geologist came on and gave a very detailed technical presentation with lots of dense slides and technical jargon. He went over details of different problems on the site, the way that uranium moves underground, groundwater levels and flows, remediation methods, problems with dust in digging up and carting off the dirt, details of the phosphate soil binding and so on. On the question of why they didn’t just dig up the contaminated soil down to thirty feet, he said that the amount of water that they would have to spray on the site to keep the dust down would wind up causing even more uranium to leach into the ground water than if they left it alone.

         According to the geologist’s explanation, there was no danger to the people using the area and Hanford authorities had a good plan that should work. There seemed to be some confusion about the timeline. The plan said that the uranium levels should be safe for drinking water in about thirty years. However, the geologist said that he felt more confident with a number like fifty years. That is quite a difference! They were going to do a review in five years and see if it was working. Unfortunately, if it was not working in five years, they had no alternative plan.

        There were a number of other pollutants that had been identified in the 300 Area soil such as tritium, radioisotopes of cesium, strontium, and cobalt as well as chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls and trichloroethylene which are very dangerous. While these are going to being monitored, there were no plans for cleaning them up. The presentation and cleanup plan were strictly for uranium.

        There was too much technical detail and jargon in the geologist’s presentation for anyone who was not a nuclear engineer. He was supposed to present his part in about twenty five minutes but it took more like fifty minutes putting the meeting way beyond schedule. When it was time for Q & A, there as discussion of going on to the formal comment section first but it was decided to have a short Q & A. The management of this meeting reminded me of the recent Magnuson Park meetings on radioactive contamination there.

For more information on 300 Area at Hanford:

Article from Hanford USDOE about 300 Area

Article about Hanford 300 Area from EPA

Pacific Northwest Laboratory article about Hanford 300 Area

Video of 300 Area cleanup plan

Japan’s first astronaut says that the Japanese government lying about the Fukushima situation. japantimes.co.jp

US natural gas boom sucks nuclear power into a downdraft. cnbc.com

Owners of Comanche Peak nuclear plant in Texas are putting their highly radioactive spent fuel rods into concrete casks. kten.com

White House says that it is willing to engage with Iran on nuclear concerns. reuters.com

Ambient office = .100 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .093 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = .093 microsieverts per hour

Red Onion from Cosco =  .136 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .093 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .073 microsieverts per hour

Notes on public meeting held at the Seattle University Heights Center on July 31, 2013 by the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) at Hanford to explain planned cleanup of Hanford 300 Area and solicit public comment.

Part 1 of 4

         I attended a public meeting called by representatives of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation last night at the University Heights Center. There were the usual glossy panels set up on a series of tables with maps, diagrams and tables explaining the situation, processes and alternatives for cleaning up the 300 Area at Hanford. There were between thirty and forty people there for the meeting. Considering how important this topic is, I was disappointed at the turn out. On the other hand, I only found out about it a few days before. Whoever is responsible for publicizing these meetings is doing a very poor job. If I were cynical, I would say that they really don’t want to talk to the public but the alternative explanation is incompetence. Even with low attendance, the meeting ran way behind schedule. If you find the following article confusing, that is an accurate reflection of the meeting.

           As I explained in a recent post, the 300 Area was used to create uranium fuel rods for Hanford reactors during World War II and the Cold War. There were also laboratories where experiments were held in the chemical extraction of plutonium from spent fuel rods for nuclear weapons. A huge quantity of liquid waste was poured into trenches in the 300 Area and solid waste was buried in several spots. It was known that uranium had soaked into the ground and that it was moving through the ground water into the Columbia River which runs along the side of the 300 Area. In the 90s, the top 15 feet of soil was removed from some parts of the 300 Area and dumped into a lined landfill at Hanford. The uranium flowing into the river dropped to safe levels. But since then the uranium flow has risen again. It was determined that there was uranium below the fifteen foot level that was been leached out of the soil when the river rose and the ground water rose with it, resoaking the soil that contained the uranium.

          Before the seven PM official presentation, Heart of America Northwest showed some slides and raised some important questions. Three contamination levels were discussed. There is an “industrial” standard for workers in buildings and grounds which would result in eight additional cases of cancer per ten thousand people. The Federal cleanup standard for residential use is one additional case of cancer per ten thousand people. The Washington State Standard is one additional case of cancer per one hundred thousand people. Federal law says that if a state standard is stricter than the national standard, then the state standard should take precedence. The Hanford plan was calling for the weakest of the three for part of the 300 Area and, as far as I understand, the Federal standard for the rest of the area. One additional concern about the designation of the industrial area was that it was going to have to be permanently fenced off and guarded from any public use. This might be difficult to maintain for decades.

For more information on 300 Area at Hanford:

Article from Hanford DOE about 300 Area

Article about Hanford 300 Area from EPA

Pacific Northwest Laboratory article about Hanford 300 Area

Video of 300 Area cleanup plan