Activists consider tank waste cleanup tradeoffs

Three responses to Experts: Keep Cold War nuke waste at sites.

Paige Knight, Hanford Watch, March 7, 2005
I believe there will be contamination issues in either leaving the "hardened heel" in the tanks or by removing them. Remember that in many tanks there is contamination under the tanks that will still eventually move to the Columbia River. I don't believe it is realistic to think that all tank waste, ground water and vadose zone contamination and tanks themselves can be removed. [The vadose zone is all the dirt between the surface and the water table.]

It is time for the public to take a look at the huge questions that we are just beginning to grapple with and the trade-offs (I hate the concept because it is often used disingenuously) of what are the worst risks, both short-term and long-term, and where do we begin cleanup on this level.

The public will have opportunities to begin learning and thinking about and responding to these issues when the Tank Closure EIS (environmental impact statement) comes out sometime in the summer or fall.

Rob Davis, Hanford Information Network, March 8, 2005
Paige makes a good point that we need to understand the ideal case from realistic expectations.

However, I also have seen the benefits of high standards and having expectations that exceed present technology. Are we convinced that we have exhausted the possibilities or are we just calling it quits because we "don't have the budget"?

Have we placed administrative limits on the process that limits the applicable technology? For example the tank heals, because of the administrative hold on new waste generation have we left off the table use of aggressive acids, acid foams or ultrasonic methods to dissolve the waste? Have we left off the table "cathodic" charging the vessel or electrochemical dissolving the salts? Have we given up before tomorrow's technology can be applied?

As we have seen in the past, if the only tool we have is a hammer then all the problems look like nails. (This is not my quote, but it applies) Do we have more tools that could be used? We will ask these questions of DOE when the Tank Closure EIS is reviewed.

Gerry Pollet, Heart of America Northwest, March 10
Rob Davis makes an excellent set of points: we have not come close to scratching the surface of the potential for removal of wastes from the High-Level Waste Tanks (sorry for the pun about scratching the surface). We do know we can beat 99% – which should end the debate about giving in to USDOE and Administration pressure to negotiate over plans to leave 10%. We are years away from knowing what is really possible – made more difficult by the cuts in the national research and development funding.

We are even further away from knowing what the risks are from wastes that have leaked and are spreading contamination, and what can (or must) be done to cleanup the leaks. Again, USDOE plans to call tanks and tank farms "closed" without investigating and cleaning up the leaks are simply unacceptable. The voters of WA State spoke loud and clear by adopting I-297, the Cleanup Priority Act, which requires that the tanks be emptied and leaks cleaned up to the extent practical. This was a major emphasis of Initiative 297.

The latest findings of Technetium 99 in groundwater beneath the T-TX Tanks, at the highest levels ever found at Hanford, shows that we have not yet scratched the surface of understanding risk and characterizing what has already leaked or been spilled. Again, Washington state will now stand strong to require characterization, rather than allow USDOE to proceed with plans to declare the tanks "closed' without even investigating and characterizing the leaks. I have no doubt that the new stand based in I-297 will also be supported strongly by Oregon and the Tribes.

It is a sad day, however, when some members of Congress from this region break ranks from the public and the states, and those members of Congress do not call on USDOE to stop attempting to plan to leave wastes in tanks or to avoid investigating and cleaning up the leaks. Even if it was only to preserve jobs and ensure the economic benefit from investing in cleanup, Rep. Hastings ought to be speaking out against any plan to leave wastes in tanks and against efforts to force Washington to discuss changing the TPA to leave waste. The entire Delegation should stand behind the recent effort by Senators Cantwell and Wyden in the Senate Energy Committee (and Rep. Inslee at a recent House Energy and Commerce hearing) to hold the new Energy Secretary to the commitment in his confirmation hearing that he would honor the TPA requirement to empty the tanks.