The Hanford nuclear waste site: A legacy of risk, cost, and inefficiency

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 809-839

  Lichtenstein, Noah D ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLEANUP; PLUTONIUM; RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; REMEDIATION;

HANFORD; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON [UNITED STATES]; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 13644270769     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (140)

1. U.S. Dep't of Energy, Pub. No. RL-2002-47 Rev. D, Performance Management Plan for the Accelerated Cleanup of the Hanford Site, B-2 (Aug. 2002), available at http://www.hanford.gov/docs/hpmp/index.html (last visited Apr. 24,2004).
2. See C. Wu, Radiation Helps Break Down Toxic Waste, 155 SCL News 229 (1999).
3. Id. at 3.
4. Id. at 4.
5. Id. at 3.
6. Id. at B-2.
7. U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., Pub. No. RCED-98-80, Nuclear Waste: Understanding of Waste Migration at Hanford Is Inadequate for Key Decisions 4 (Mar. 1998), available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gaoreports/ advanced.html (last visited Apr. 24, 2004).
8. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 1, at 3.
9. 10 disintegrations per second. By comparison, approximately 20 curies of radioactivity were released during the 1979 Three Mile Island incident. Chet Raymo, Can We Make Amends?, Boston Globe, Nov. 23, 1998, at E2, available at http:// www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/health/science_musings/112398.htm (last visited Nov. 16,2004).
10. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 1, at 3.
11. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, National Priorities List Sites in Washington, available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/wa.htm (last visited Apr. 24, 2004).
12. The DOE uses the term "tank farm" in reference to the physical grouping of storage tanks at Hanford into clusters. See Fed'n of Am. Scientists, Hanford Site Tank Farm, at http://www.fas.org/ irp/imint/doe_hanford_tank_01.htm (last visited Apr. 24, 2004).
13. I b i d.
14. U.S. Dep't of Energy, Hanford Site Tours, at http:/ /www.hanford.gov/tours/virtual.cfm (last visited Apr. 24, 2004).
15. U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 7.
16. A crib is an underground structure designed to allow liquid wastes to percolate to the soil.
17. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 1, at 3.
18. Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Energy, Radioactive Waste Tank Expert Panel to Meet Late June; Hanford Site Panel Will Review and Analyze Draft Contamination Report (June 8, 1998), available at http:/ /www.hanford.gov/press/1998/98-059.htm (last visited Apr. 24, 2004).
19. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 1, at 3.
20. I b i d.
21. The waste in these tanks contributes about 215 million curies to Hanford's inventory of high-level waste. See Richland Operations Office, U.S. Dep't of Energy, Pub. No. RL/REG-99-20 Rev. 1, Preface to Review Guidance for the Revised Standards Approval Package for Construction Authorization (Jan. 2000), available at http:/ /www.hanford.gov/osr/documents/reg-99-20.html (last visited Apr. 24,2004).
22. CH2MHILL-Hanford Group, Inc., Pub. No. HNF-EP-0182, Rev. 186, Waste Tank Summary Report for Month Ending September 30, 2003 (Oct. 2003) [hereinafter Waste Tank Summary Report].
23. U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., Pub. No. GAO-03-593, Nuclear Waste: Challenges to Achieving Potential Savings in Doe's High-Level Waste Cleanup Program 6 (June 2003), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03593.pdf (last visited Apr. 24, 2004).
24. The terms "single-shell" and "double-shell" refer to the number of layers of carbon steel encased inside a concrete outer wall.
25. U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 23;
26. see also Waste Tank Summary Report, supra note 22.
27. The vadose zone is the area above the water table, comprised of soil and rocks, that DOE incorrectly assumed would be a sufficient barrier to hazadous wastes reaching the ground water.
28. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 1.
29. I b i d.
30. While it is unclear whether or not the K-Basins were specifically designed to withstand such a catastrophe, the general trend at Hanford has shown that long-term planning was not adequately considered in the construction of other facilities, such as with the deterioration of storage tanks.
31. Bechtel Corp., Hanford's Environmental Restoration Program, available at http://www.bechtel.com/ppHanford.htm (last visited Oct. 5, 2004).
32. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 1.
33. Id. at 1.
34. These savings estimates have since been amended. One 2003 DOE estimate lists savings at $14.5 billion. See U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 23.
35. See U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 23.
36. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 1.
37. Id. at ii.
38. I b i d.
39. Telephone Interview with Mike Wilson, Washington Dep't of Ecology (Dec. 29, 2003).
40. U.S. Dep't of Energy, Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program: Integrating Accelerated Site Cleanup Completion with Long-Range Post-Cleanup Planning, Doc. No. HNF-12254 REV A WORKING DRAFT (Sept. 2002), available at www.hanford.gov/docs/hnf-12254/HNF-12254.pdf (last visited Apr. 25, 2004).
41. I b i d.
42. I b i d.
43. Caps are engineered ecological structures that cover contaminated areas and prevent contaminants from reaching the surface.
44. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 38.
45. Memorandum to Sen. Ron Wyden, Environmental Cleanup at the Hanford Nuclear Facility (Nov. 25, 2003).
46. 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 (2000). See especially 42 U.S.C. § 9620 (2000) (making federal agencies subject to CERCLA to the same degree as private entities).
47. For a list of the major contractors and the actions they perform, refer to DOE's Hanford website at http://www.hanford.gov/top/whowho.html (last visited Apr. 24, 2004).
48. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992 (1994). See especially 42 U.S.C. 6961 (1994) (making federal agencies subject to RCRA to the same degree as private entities).
49. Telephone Interview with Mike Wilson, supra note 37.
50. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 70.105 (West 2004).
51. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2011-2097 (1996).
52. U.S. Dep't of Energy, U.S. EPA & Wash. State Dep't of Ecology, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order 89-10 (as amended through Sept. 2003), available at http://www.hanford.gov/tpa/ coverpg.htm (last visited Apr. 24, 2004).
53. I b i d.
54. I b i d.
55. See generally U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 23.
56. For a more comprehensive list of DOE milestones, see Appendix, Table 1 infra.
57. Further analysis of poor project management and planning practices will be provided in Part VIII infra.
58. See generally U.S. DOE, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, M 435.1-1 (July 9, 1999), available at http:// www.directives.doe.gov/pdfs/doe/doetext/neword/435/m4351-1c1.pdf (last visited Apr. 24,2004);
59. U.S. DOE, Implementation Guide for DOE M 435.1-1, G 435.1-1 (July 9, 1999), available at http:// www.directives.doe.gov/cgi-bin/explhcgi?qry1850731058;doe-184 (last visited Apr. 24, 2004).
60. See generally U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 23.
61. 42 U.S.C. §§ 10,101-10,270 (2000).
62. U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 23.
63. I b i d.
64. Natural Res. Def. Council v. Abraham, 271 F. Supp. 2d. 1260 (D. Idaho 2003).
65. I b i d.
66. Shawn Terry, DOE Seeks Nuclear Waste Clarification to Reaffirm HLW Disposal Strategy, 28 Nuclear Fuel 14 (2003).
67. U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 23.
68. Telephone Interview with Mike Wilson, supra note 37.
69. U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 23.
70. I b i d.
71. I b i d.
72. I b i d.
73. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 1, at 1.
74. U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 23.
75. I b i d.
76. U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., Nuclear Waste: Process to Remove Radioactive Waste from Savannah River Tanks Fails to Work, GAO/ RCED-99-69 (Apr. 30,1999).
77. Telephone Interview with Clare Gilbert, Policy Associate, Gov't Accountability Project (Dec. 29, 2003).
78. Gov't Accountability Project, Knowing Endangerment: Worker Exposure to Toxic Vapors at the Hanford Tank Farms (Sept. 2003).
79. I b i d.
80. Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Energy, DOE to Investigate Rise in Surface Level of Hanford Waste Tank (Mar. 24,1998), available at http:/ /www.hanford.gov/press/1998/98017.htm (last visited Apr. 30, 2004);
81. Waste Tank Summary Report, supra note 22.
82. Press Release, supra note 77.
83. Office of River Protection, U.S. Dep't of Energy, FY 2002 Integrated Technology Plan for the River Protection Project (Feb. 1, 2002).
84. Telephone Interview with Claire Gilbert, supra note 74.
85. One of Hanford's 18 tank farms.
86. Telephone Interview with Claire Gilbert, supra note 74.
87. I b i d.
88. Gov't Accountability Project, supra note 75.
89. Id. at 7.
90. Id. at 9.
91. Id. at 7.
92. I b i d.
93. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 1.
94. Gov't Accountability Project, supra note 75.
95. Telephone Interview with Claire Gilbert, supra note 74.
96. I b i d.
97. I b i d.
98. I b i d.
99. Govt Accountability Project, supra note 75.
100. I b i d.
101. Memorandum, supra note 43.
102. I b i d.
103. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Incidence Rates of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2002 (Dec. 18, 2003), available at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/ osh/os/ostb1244.pdf (last visited Apr. 23,2004).
104. Gov't Accountability Project, supra note 75.
105. Id. at 2. This list is nearly identical but is not quoted verbatim.
106. I b i d.
107. I b i d.
108. U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., Uncertain Furure for External Regulation of Worker and Nuclear Facility Safety, GAO/T-RCED-99-269 (July 22, 1999);
109. Alfred Zuck et al., Nat'l Acad. of Pub. Admin, Ensuring Worker Safety and Health Across the DOE Complex (Jan. 1997).
110. Memorandum, supra note 43.
111. I b i d.
112. An act to provide for the external regulation of nuclear safety and occupational safety and health at the Department of Energy, H.R. Rep. 1961, 108th Cong. (1st Sess. 2003) (introduced by Rep. Jerry Costello (D-I11.)).
113. Telephone Interview with Robert Budnitz, Chairman, Nat'l Academy of Sci. Comm. on Buried & Tank Waste (1993-1997) (May 15,2002).
114. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 1.
115. I b i d.
116. Memorandum, supra note 43.
117. I b i d.
118. Telephone Interview with Todd Webster, Press Secretary for Sen. Patty Murray (May 24,2002).
119. I b i d.
120. I b i d.
121. I b i d.
122. Memorandum, supra note 43.
123. I b i d.
124. U.S. Dep't of Energy, supra note 1, at 10.
125. Telephone Interview with Robert Budnitz, supra note 108.
126. The problems associated with DOE's worker injury reports (discussed in Part IX supra) likely contribute to the local citizenry's lack of a sense of urgency.
127. Telephone Interview with Robert Budnitz, supra note 108.
128. I b i d.
129. Greenfield status refers to land not previously developed beyond that of agriculture or forestry use.
130. DOE currently plans to restore approximately 511 acres, or over 85 percent of the Hanford site.
131. Telephone Interview with Robert Budnitz, supra note 108.
132. I b i d.
133. I b i d.
134. I b i d.
135. See Part VIII supra.
136. There is no one source that specifically shows that the local citizenry is directly disregarding the costs. This is part of the Budnitz argument and is based on how the local government and local citizenry have reacted to various DOE proposals and actions. One source is Natural Resources Defense Council v. Abraham, 271 F. Supp. 2d. 1260 (D. Idaho 2003), in which the plaintiffs include a number of local groups such as the Snake River Alliance, The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, and the Shoshone Bannock Tribes. Also, in this case the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina participated as amicus curiae. A second source is from a leading Hanford citizen's action group, Heart of America Northwest. This group drafted a response to the DOE's Performance Management Plan, supra note 1, explicitly opposing the DOE's plan to permanently store wastes on-site at Hanford, available at http://www.heartofamericanorthwest.org/ reportspubs/hanfordreview.html (last visited Apr. 24, 2004). While none of these sources explicitly states that the local citizenry is disregarding the costs, their actions suggest that these other concerns consistently take precedent over cost-saving measures.
137. Telephone Interview with Robert Budnitz, supra note 108.
138. Coincidentally, instead of transporting all of its low-level wastes to existing treatment sites, DOE is constructing a new on-site facility specifically tailored for wastes at Hanford. See U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 23.
139. See U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., supra note 23.
140. Consequently, DOE has no sites in Maine.