Latest News and Efforts from the Government Accountability ProjectHanford E-Alert
gap-general-list@whistleblower.org
gap-general-list@whistleblower.org
20 Feb 2003 16:00:00 -0000
Hanford E-Alert
Tom Carpenter
E-ALERT ON HANFORD
<br />February 13, 2003<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Public Comment Needed on High-Level Radioactive Waste Left at Hanford<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Up to 75% of the High-Level Nuclear Waste stored in underground tanks at the Hanford Nuclear Site in southeastern Washington will be buried at Hanford instead of being put into glass and shipped off to a high-level waste repository, according to a new proposal from the Bush Administration.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is gathering comments on the scope of an Environmental Impact Statement on Retrieval, Treatment and Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of Single-Shell Tanks at Hanford.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Background<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Two thirds of the nation’s extremely deadly high level waste is stored a few miles from the banks of the Columbia River at Hanford's leaky, underground tanks.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>A controversy has been raging for decades regarding how to deal with this extremely long lived and dangerous waste.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>By 1996, however, a regional consensus finally was reached on at least one aspect of treating this waste. Government officials agreed that all of the waste that could be removed from the Hanford tanks would be mixed with glass and ultimately stored in a deep, geological repository (like Yucca Mountain) - - and isolated for at least 10,000 years.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Yet, the Bush administration has decided that the glassification (called vitrification) project is too expensive and has proposed not to vitrify most of the waste after all. Instead, up to 75% of the high level nuclear waste would be buried permanently in shallow trenches right on the Hanford site.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>This high level waste is so deadly, that a very small amount would be considered lethal, and exposure to this waste can cause cancer, mutagenic effects, and a myriad of health concerns.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P> Instead of vitrifying the waste, the Bush administration has proposed using alternate technologies for treating the waste – such as by pouring concrete (grout) into the high level waste tanks. Years ago scientists concluded grouting high level waste was not a credible technology, as it would break down in very little time. <BR>
<br />
<br /></P>A lawsuit in federal district court in Idaho brought by public interest organizations and Native American tribes is challenging the Department of Energy’s (DOE) ability to re-label this high level nuclear waste as something else – a necessary ploy that DOE is trying to use in order to evade the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (which mandates that high level waste be isolated for 10,000 years in a deep geologic repository).<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• Scientific studies and Congress have concluded that the Hanford site is not a suitable repository for high level nuclear waste.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• The DOE does not have the legal authority to re-characterize high level waste as something else, simply to make cleanup cheaper.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• It is the position of the Government Accountability Project that all of Hanford tank waste must be vitrified and properly disposed of in accordance with federal law.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Deadline for Comments is March 11, 2003. See www.hanford.gov for the Federal Register Notice of the Scoping Comment.<BR>
<br />
<br />++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>2. State of Washington Won't Object to Bush Administration's Plan to Import 70,000 Truckloads of Off-Site Nuclear Waste to Hanford <BR>
<br />
<br /></P>In late summer of 2002, hundreds of citizens turned out to oppose the DOE’s Draft Hanford Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement. Under this plan, the government would import an estimated 70,000 truckloads of offsite nuclear and chemically contaminated waste for permanent burial at Hanford.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>In the face of such outcry, the DOE was obliged to withdraw the draft EIS for further study and now plans to re-issue another draft in March 2003.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>However, in October 2002, DOE announced that it would import 170 barrels of extremely dangerous plutonium-contaminated (transuranic) waste from California and Ohio into Washington, and it would do so regardless that the draft EIS had been withdrawn (meaning that these shipments weren't covered by any environmental analysis).<BR>
<br />
<br /> </P>The DOE's behavior prompted a strong letter from the Governor and Attorney General of the state of Washington in late November 2002 opposing the transuranic shipments in no uncertain terms.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Three weeks later, Washington Ecology director Tom Fitzsimmons announced that the state would not oppose these new shipments, despite the lack of an environmental analysis. Fitzsimmons sent former governor Mike Lowry to meet with citizens groups concerned about the deal Fitzsimmons had struck with DOE.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>What followed was a series of meetings between Fitzsimmons and several key Hanford watchdog groups. The result of these meetings was the development of a clear understanding of the policy of the State of Washington Department of Ecology towards the importation of offsite waste:<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• Ecology is not opposing, nor will it oppose, the annual importation and disposal of hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of nuclear and chemical wastes at Hanford.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• Ecology is not opposing, nor will it oppose, the importation of an estimated 70.000 truckloads of radioactive and chemical nuclear wastes for burial at Hanford in the future.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• Ecology is not opposing, nor will it oppose, the continued operation of unlicensed and illegal use of chemically and radiologically-contaminated burial grounds at the Hanford site.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>o These burial grounds consist of unlined trenches with no monitoring and no environmental analysis in support of their operations.<BR>
<br /></P>o These same trenches have contaminated and continue to contaminate the groundwater below the Hanford site. <BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Tom Fitzsimmons and the governor have reiterated that they don’t want Hanford to become the nation’s nuclear waste dump. However, it does appear that Mr. Fitzsimmons is ready to exchange acceptance of massive quantities of radioactive and chemical nuclear wastes for burial at Hanford in return for DOE's promises to vitrify Hanford's high-level waste and to send Hanford's transuranic waste offsite. Though DOE still promises to vitrify the high level waste, as discussed above, it is becoming clear that DOE really intends to leave much of it un-vitrified and on the Hanford site.
<br />
<br />
<br />
If you no longer wish to receive these e-mails, please send an email with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line. To one of the addresses below.
If you are recieving these emails from <a href=mailto:gap-general-list-request@whistleblower.org>gap-general-list@whistleblower.org</a>
If you are recieving these emails from <a href=mailto:gap-media-request@whistleblower.org>gap-media-list@whistleblower.org</a>
Hanford E-Alert
Tom Carpenter
E-ALERT ON HANFORD
<br />February 13, 2003<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Public Comment Needed on High-Level Radioactive Waste Left at Hanford<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Up to 75% of the High-Level Nuclear Waste stored in underground tanks at the Hanford Nuclear Site in southeastern Washington will be buried at Hanford instead of being put into glass and shipped off to a high-level waste repository, according to a new proposal from the Bush Administration.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is gathering comments on the scope of an Environmental Impact Statement on Retrieval, Treatment and Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of Single-Shell Tanks at Hanford.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Background<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Two thirds of the nation’s extremely deadly high level waste is stored a few miles from the banks of the Columbia River at Hanford's leaky, underground tanks.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>A controversy has been raging for decades regarding how to deal with this extremely long lived and dangerous waste.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>By 1996, however, a regional consensus finally was reached on at least one aspect of treating this waste. Government officials agreed that all of the waste that could be removed from the Hanford tanks would be mixed with glass and ultimately stored in a deep, geological repository (like Yucca Mountain) - - and isolated for at least 10,000 years.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Yet, the Bush administration has decided that the glassification (called vitrification) project is too expensive and has proposed not to vitrify most of the waste after all. Instead, up to 75% of the high level nuclear waste would be buried permanently in shallow trenches right on the Hanford site.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>This high level waste is so deadly, that a very small amount would be considered lethal, and exposure to this waste can cause cancer, mutagenic effects, and a myriad of health concerns.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P> Instead of vitrifying the waste, the Bush administration has proposed using alternate technologies for treating the waste – such as by pouring concrete (grout) into the high level waste tanks. Years ago scientists concluded grouting high level waste was not a credible technology, as it would break down in very little time. <BR>
<br />
<br /></P>A lawsuit in federal district court in Idaho brought by public interest organizations and Native American tribes is challenging the Department of Energy’s (DOE) ability to re-label this high level nuclear waste as something else – a necessary ploy that DOE is trying to use in order to evade the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (which mandates that high level waste be isolated for 10,000 years in a deep geologic repository).<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• Scientific studies and Congress have concluded that the Hanford site is not a suitable repository for high level nuclear waste.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• The DOE does not have the legal authority to re-characterize high level waste as something else, simply to make cleanup cheaper.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• It is the position of the Government Accountability Project that all of Hanford tank waste must be vitrified and properly disposed of in accordance with federal law.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Deadline for Comments is March 11, 2003. See www.hanford.gov for the Federal Register Notice of the Scoping Comment.<BR>
<br />
<br />++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>2. State of Washington Won't Object to Bush Administration's Plan to Import 70,000 Truckloads of Off-Site Nuclear Waste to Hanford <BR>
<br />
<br /></P>In late summer of 2002, hundreds of citizens turned out to oppose the DOE’s Draft Hanford Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement. Under this plan, the government would import an estimated 70,000 truckloads of offsite nuclear and chemically contaminated waste for permanent burial at Hanford.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>In the face of such outcry, the DOE was obliged to withdraw the draft EIS for further study and now plans to re-issue another draft in March 2003.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>However, in October 2002, DOE announced that it would import 170 barrels of extremely dangerous plutonium-contaminated (transuranic) waste from California and Ohio into Washington, and it would do so regardless that the draft EIS had been withdrawn (meaning that these shipments weren't covered by any environmental analysis).<BR>
<br />
<br /> </P>The DOE's behavior prompted a strong letter from the Governor and Attorney General of the state of Washington in late November 2002 opposing the transuranic shipments in no uncertain terms.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Three weeks later, Washington Ecology director Tom Fitzsimmons announced that the state would not oppose these new shipments, despite the lack of an environmental analysis. Fitzsimmons sent former governor Mike Lowry to meet with citizens groups concerned about the deal Fitzsimmons had struck with DOE.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>What followed was a series of meetings between Fitzsimmons and several key Hanford watchdog groups. The result of these meetings was the development of a clear understanding of the policy of the State of Washington Department of Ecology towards the importation of offsite waste:<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• Ecology is not opposing, nor will it oppose, the annual importation and disposal of hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of nuclear and chemical wastes at Hanford.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• Ecology is not opposing, nor will it oppose, the importation of an estimated 70.000 truckloads of radioactive and chemical nuclear wastes for burial at Hanford in the future.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>• Ecology is not opposing, nor will it oppose, the continued operation of unlicensed and illegal use of chemically and radiologically-contaminated burial grounds at the Hanford site.<BR>
<br />
<br /></P>o These burial grounds consist of unlined trenches with no monitoring and no environmental analysis in support of their operations.<BR>
<br /></P>o These same trenches have contaminated and continue to contaminate the groundwater below the Hanford site. <BR>
<br />
<br /></P>Tom Fitzsimmons and the governor have reiterated that they don’t want Hanford to become the nation’s nuclear waste dump. However, it does appear that Mr. Fitzsimmons is ready to exchange acceptance of massive quantities of radioactive and chemical nuclear wastes for burial at Hanford in return for DOE's promises to vitrify Hanford's high-level waste and to send Hanford's transuranic waste offsite. Though DOE still promises to vitrify the high level waste, as discussed above, it is becoming clear that DOE really intends to leave much of it un-vitrified and on the Hanford site.
<br />
<br />
<br />
If you no longer wish to receive these e-mails, please send an email with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line. To one of the addresses below.
If you are recieving these emails from <a href=mailto:gap-general-list-request@whistleblower.org>gap-general-list@whistleblower.org</a>
If you are recieving these emails from <a href=mailto:gap-media-request@whistleblower.org>gap-media-list@whistleblower.org</a>