COMMENTS OF U.S. CONGRESSMAN EARL BLUMENAUER
US Department of Energy Hearing on Accelerated Cleanup Plan for Hanford Nuclear Reservation
Portland, Oregon
June 4, 2002

As a citizen and elected official from the Northwest who has twice visited the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and floated the Hanford Reach National Monument, I am convinced that nuclear contamination at Hanford remains the most serious threat facing our citizens and our environment.

It is our responsibility to ensure the toxic legacy at Hanford is not left for our children to face, thus I am pleased that the Department of Energy is looking to innovative technologies and strategies with the goal of accelerating clean up. However, it is imperative that any new ideas be thoroughly evaluated to ensure that they move the clean-up process forward and do not leave us with a deteriorating situation. New technologies must not interfere with the construction and start of the vitrification plant for turning some of the most hazardous waste into glass for permanent storage.

The 1989 Tri-Part Agreement between the DOE, EPA, and Washington Department of Ecology sets milestones and requirements for cleanup at Hanford. The new plan from DOE Headquarters proposes an $800,000 "slush fund" that would encourage competition among DOE sites to achieve goals while altering these guidelines. Funding for Hanford clean up should not be held contingent upon amending benchmarks stipulated in the TPA or subsequent agreements.

Hanford has 177 waste tanks, many of which have leaked and nearly all of which have reached or are nearing the end of their design life. Removal and vitrification of tank wastes are essential to protecting the nearby Columbia River from contamination by future leaks. Under no circumstances should we even consider importing new waste to Hanford at least until the vitrification plant has been constructed and proven successful in its operations.

While a faster, cheaper clean-up at Hanford is something we would like to achieve, the NEPA and RCRA processes must not be undermined in the name of cost-cutting or time-saving. These programs guarantee direct public involvement in clean-up decisions that affect the health and safety of the entire Hanford and Pacific Northwest communities.

While I am encouraged to see the DOE call attention to the urgent situation at Hanford, and attempt to bring better overall management and increased efficiency to clean up, we must consider whether the DOE’s approach to accelerated clean up will indeed improve the situation, or pose further setbacks; in effect, leaving the problems at Hanford for the next generation to solve.