HANFORD CLEANUP The First 25 Years September 2014 September 1014 Hanford Cleanup: The First 25 Years September 2014 Hanford Cleanup: The First 25 Years Written by: Ken Niles Oregon Department of Energy Most photos are courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy. Graphic design by CarterWorks, Ashland, OR This report was written and produced by the Oregon Department of Energy’s Nuclear Safety Division, with the support of U.S. Department of Energy Grant #DE-EM0001363. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Energy. Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion Street NE, Salem, OR 97301-3737 503-378-4040 • 800-221-8035 • http://oregon.gov/ENERGY/ Hanford Cleanup: The First 25 Years n February 1992, Westing- From the 10 Year Report, Ihouse Hanford President August 1999: Tom Anderson warned The original milestones in Hanford Site workers that the TPA were ambitious — mere cleanup was not too much so in many cases, enough to maintain con- and did not sufficiently tinued funding. “No way reflect the complexity and is the government going to challenges that exist at keep spending billions and Hanford. billions at Hanford over so The early years of many years just to clean Hanford cleanup were up some desert land. The marked by frustration, government doesn’t have false starts, a lack of en- a history of sticking with Construction of a burial ground in Hanford’s 200 West Area. thusiasm over the cleanup something that long.” mission, and environmental laws which required More than 20 years and about $40 billion later, extensive study and planning before cleanup could we’re fortunate that the government has stuck with occur. Much attention was occupied by concerns it that long. And in some ways — as absurd as it about tank safety issues and trying to understand may sound — that’s just the beginning. The U.S. the potential for a tank fire or explosion. Department of Energy (DOE), which owns and op- DOE and its prime contractor at the time, erates Hanford, predicts the cleanup to run through Westinghouse, had no shortage of “partners” will- the year 2060, with a remaining estimated cleanup ing to advise them on cleanup. Regulators, Congress, cost of $113.6 billion. other DOE programs, Native American tribes, the The 586 square mile Hanford Site in south- State of Oregon, activist groups, and many others, eastern Washington was home to the world’s first freely shared their oftentimes conflicting opinions plutonium production facilities. For more than about how DOE should proceed with cleanup. 40 years at Hanford, the federal government pro- After this very slow start, cleanup is now duced plutonium for America’s nuclear weapons well underway and there are many successes. program. The processes generated tremendous Unfortunately, much remains to be done. The amounts of radioactive and chemically hazardous biggest concern is that after ten years of cleanup, waste. Plutonium production ended at Hanford in we have seen little progress towards removing 1988. Since 1989, the focus has been on environ- Hanford’s most dangerous wastes from aging un- mental cleanup. derground storage tanks. More than 50 million Throughout the past 25 years, the Oregon gallons of high-level radioactive waste remain in Department of Energy has chronicled the Hanford these tanks, at least 67 of which have leaked. Now, cleanup. This is the fourth iteration of this doc- these tanks are ten years older. In the past two years ument. We looked back at the first 10 years of we’ve also seen confirmation that leaked tank waste Hanford cleanup; the first 15 years; and the first 20 has reached groundwater — showing that time isn’t years. Now, we’re at 25 years. on our side. By looking back at these previous reports, we During the past ten years we’ve seen a tremen- can see how the focus has changed as time has gone dous increase in the public’s interest, involvement by and the cleanup has progressed. Two constant and advocacy on behalf of Hanford. We’ve seen the themes, however, are the lack of progress with tank creation of the Hanford Advisory Board and con- waste treatment and concerns about funding. siderable progress in citizen involvement through Hanford Cleanup: The First 25 Years | Page i this forum and others. We’ve also seen, in the past After 15 years of cleanup, we have reached a piv- year or two, a divisiveness — primarily over future otal place in Hanford cleanup. Most of the immediate missions at Hanford — that threatens to tear apart risks have been successfully resolved. Now the focus this delicate and diverse coalition of interests. is squarely on the quality of the remaining cleanup. The Tri-Party Agreement repeatedly came under And there is considerable debate about that issue. attack and has so far survived the scrutiny of There are still plenty of long-term risks. Exten- Congressional leaders. The regulators have been sive groundwater contamination remains and huge willing to adjust the cleanup schedule as necessary. amounts of waste are still moving in Hanford’s Although the schedule in the TPA has been moved sub-surface to the groundwater, including high-lev- back by ten years to 2028, it’s clear that cleanup will el radioactive waste leaked from the tanks. Highly take far longer than that. radioactive materials remain in unlined burial We’ve seen four Secretaries of Energy, three Site grounds. And, until we can put those vitrification Managers (plus several interim or acting Managers) facilities to use, 53 million gallons of high-level and more five and 10 year cleanup plans than any- waste remains in 177 underground storage tanks. one can keep straight. The public’s insistence that cleanup continue The Hanford cleanup has involved and engaged has — without question — had a huge impact at many people, beginning with the thousands of Hanford. The successes at Hanford are a shared ac- Hanford workers, many of whom risked their health complishment by all who have worked to see cleanup and their lives while working in extremely hazard- move forward. But the job is far from over and your ous conditions. Hanford cleanup also involved those continued involvement is absolutely necessary. in the political, regulatory, and public policy arenas, who work — together usually — to try and ensure From the 20 Year Report, July 2009: Hanford is safely cleaned up. The cleanup is not nearly as far along as any of us expected or would like to have seen. The remaining From the 15 Year Report, October 2004: challenges will require significant funds, technical There is no question it has been an eventful five years ingenuity, and dogged determination to see the at Hanford. A range fire in July 2000 burned about cleanup through to completion. 45 per cent of the site — threatening many contam- This is not the full story of Hanford cleanup. inated facilities and burning over a few waste sites. But it is a big part of the story. This report was not Plans to privately finance the construction of facili- intended as ‘the Oregon view’ on the cleanup, and ties to immobilize some of Hanford’s most danger- we made no attempt to ‘spin’ this report so as to be ous wastes fell apart that same summer. To DOE’s overly critical or overly complimentary of the work credit, they were able to recover from that debacle, that has been done. We’ve attempted merely to pro- and construction of those facilities is now well un- vide information on what happened and when — derway using government financing. the good and the bad; the breakthroughs and the Significant progress was made in other key proj- breakdowns; and much in-between. ects — moving pumpable liquids from the single We believe the history of Hanford cleanup of- shell tanks to double shell tanks, moving spent nu- fers us lessons for the present and for the future and clear fuel to interim storage away from the Columbia is well worth documenting. We have already seen River, and stabilizing tons of plutonium. In addition, that assumptions made during the operating years we’ve seen the cocooning of several nuclear reactors, about the finality of waste disposal have in many the dismantling of plutonium-contaminated facilities, cases proven to be very wrong. Considerable effort and movement of huge amounts of contaminated has gone into digging up many old burial grounds soils away from the Columbia River shoreline. and disposal areas that were thought at the time to This progress occurred despite substantial con- be safe and permanent disposal places. We hope that flict. DOE and its regulators were often at odds. The decisions and actions that have been made during State of Oregon, the Yakama Nation, and several citi- these past 20 years are protective and durable. zen groups initiated or joined litigation against DOE. The biggest lesson may be one that has been Page ii | Hanford Cleanup: The First 25 Years Hanford Site Hanford Site W To Othello hite B l uf fs 100 H Wahluke Slope State Highway 24 Area 100 D & White DR Area Bluffs 100 N Townsite Area Vernita Bridge Columbia 100 KW River & KE 100 F To Vantage & Seattle Route 6 Areas Route 1 Area State Highway 243 Route 2 Vernita 100 B & C Areas Route 4N Route 6 Yakima Barricade Route 11 A State Highway 24 Meteorology Hanford Townsite To Yakima 200 Route 3 200 W Area E Area US Ecology ERDF Route 4 South Route 2 Fitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands Ringold Ecology State Highway 240 Wye Barricade Arid Lands Ecology Energy Northwest LIGO Site Route 4 South 400 Area Rattlesnake Mtn.