Fifty four million gallons of liquid, toxic waste is slowly leaking into the ground water supply at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washington. The contaminated ground water flows directly into the Columbia River, potentially endangering the regions largest and most valuable source of irrigation and drinking water. Scientists, contractors and ecologists have repeatedly warned Hanford officials of the possibility of the daunting problem, but their reports and concerns were downplayed. The proof and acknowledgment, during the week of November 26th, 1997, of leaking wastes at Hanford underscored the fears of environmental groups who have attempted to head this problem off for many years. A look at the history behind the Hanford Nuclear Site uncovers the source of the problem and it’s ramifications and helps answer the questions of who is responsible for the clean up and how it should be done. A final overview of the local problem will show the magnitude of ecological and economical harm from nuclear weapon production on a global scale.
In 1943, the Hanford Nuclear Site in eastern Washington was created by the United States government for plutonium production as part of the Manhattan Project. The site, known for its research of nuclear weapons, was under national security, therefore no outside influences were able to monitor the production and disposal practices of the site. The most potentially dangerous high-level nuclear wastes come from weapons manufacturing. (1) The nuclear wastes made up of liquids, solids and sludge, are a complex mixture of materials created in military reactors. These wastes have contaminated the site due to leaking storage tanks and negligent disposal, including 440 billion gallons of contaminated liquids that were dumped directly into the soil.(2) As a result of the careless disposal techniques, the 560 square mile Hanford site is considered the most contaminated place in the nation.
Over the years, Hanford operations have been divided among a number of contractors that performed various services, from nuclear industries to telephone and telegraph support. While some of the waste at Hanford can be contributed to nuclear power plants most of it is due to the nuclear tests and thousands of weapons created during the cold war. From World War II until the present time, U.S. defense activities have generated the greatest volume of nuclear wastes. (1) Today, the focus of activities is site cleanup and environmental restoration. The lands to be cleaned up around Hanford are of cultural, historic, and religious significance to a number of Native American Tribes and everyday citizens. "The Tribes are asking an important question, ‘how clean is clean?’" (3) According to restoration documents, the Department of Energy thinks that the site should be considered clean if it is safe for recreational use, just seven days a year, eight hours a day. The Tribes who are eating native plants and fish from the Columbia River are arguing that the Department of Energy needs to change their risk assessment, for the natives will be exposed to the deadly contamination far more than a mere seven days a year.
There are many health concerns and cleanup methods being attempted at Hanford. The most threatening and widely reported concern is the leaking of the underground storage tanks. The recent discovery that the wastes are actually moving through the aquifer towards the Columbia River has drawn a lot of media coverage and has labeled the tanks as the most pressing, dangerous problem. The fifty four million gallons of tank wastes stored underground are the most dangerous discards among the billions of gallons of nuclear wastes generated from 40 years of plutonium production.(4) For years the Energy Department has argued that any radioactive material that is leaking will be chemically bound to the soil and will not flow. But recent measurements show that cesium and other deadly materials have moved farther than expected. A group of outside experts brought in by the Energy Department said in January of 1997 that the model the department had used to calculate the spread of underground materials was "inadequate and unrealistic." (5) The major threats from the radioactive wastes are:
Cesium 137: the primary radioactive element leaking from the tanks. It is a know carcinogen that will remain deadly for nearly 100 years. (6)
Iodine 131: threat from radiation that is linked with Thyroid disease. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has led the study of Thyroid disease at Hanford.(6)
Disappointingly, it is believed that Hanford officials have know for several years that the wastes could have potentially been moving slowly and simply felt that there was no severe threat due to the fact that it would take ten to twenty years before the ground water under Hanford reached the Columbia River. The U.S. Department of Energy statement that finally admitted to the movement of nuclear wastes was criticized by environmentalists and was called "two little, too late." (7) Tom Carpenter, an attorney for the Government Accountability Project, stated, "The Department of Energy ground-water monitoring program always had the data, but managers ignored it." (4) Early tank leak discoveries were disputed by Hanford managers. In 1995, cesium was discovered at least 130 feet below some of Hanford’s oldest tanks. Hanford managers said that the radiation probably ran underground through boreholes drilled to check for contamination. This argument was proved incorrect in 1996, when an investigation panel discovered that the radiation didn’t leak down boreholes, but come from under the tanks. Some managers argued that tank wastes never went deep into the soil and never reached ground water in the first place. (4) Another argument was made by K. Mike Thompson, Hanford’s ground-water manager, regarding his downplay of information he received of nuclear waste movement toward the Columbia. Thompson said, "The rate of flow of the underground aquifer has slowed significantly in recent years. That’s because water dumping from Hanford’s bomb-making has been stopped, reducing the size of the huge underground water mounds that once drove the flow at a rapid clip."(4) Whether the deadly carcinogens reach the Columbia River in ten years or one hundred years, the wastes will still be incorporated into the food chain and will expose people to radiation for centuries. Ignoring and trying to hide the results has only weighted the problem and halted cleanup which should have started long ago.
The cause of the leakage and soil contamination is due to old storage tanks and technology that should have been replaced long ago. In the rush of nuclear weapon production in the 1940’s, the wastes from production were either dumped ignorantly into the soil or put into giant single wall underground storage tanks, which were built and buried in haste. In all, 147 storage tanks were utilized, each with only a recommended lifetime of twenty years. These original tanks, some capable of holding millions of gallons, are still underground and filled with nuclear wastes. Many double wall tanks were put in place in the later years of production at Hanford, and these, unlike the single wall, are holding up well with no leaks to-date. Sixty-seven of the 147 old, single wall tanks are reported to have leaks. Along with the major toxins, cesium and iodine, there are a multitude of other lethal toxins including chromium, radioactive technetium 99, and radioactive plutonium, which have been found in the underground water. The ground water beneath the tanks already contains contaminants from more than 440 billion gallons of dilute wastewater that was pumped into the ground at Hanford from 1945 until recently. (8)
Depending on which of the five groups of leaking tanks measurements are taken from, the Columbia River is only 10-15 miles away from the source of contamination. Though the flow of toxins is slow moving, such a short distance to the Columbia means that rapid steps must be taken to remedy the poisonous flow and its source. Experts of nuclear cleanup report that the migration of radioactive wastes through the aquifer do not necessarily indicate an immediate health risk, but add that implications for cleanup are immense.(7) Hanford officials and the Energy Department have been working on emptying the oldest tanks to prevent more leaks. The liquid is pumped out and then stabilized before shipment to a Nevada storage site. About five tanks a year have been emptied in the last few years, but on Oct. 1, 1997 they began only pumping two a year due to budget constraints.(9) Many Hanford officials state that the tanks are just another contributor to the long list of cleanup problems at Hanford caused by nuclear weapon production. Due to the possibility of toxins reaching the Columbia River, environmentalists argue that the tanks should take precedence and more time and funds should be focused on the tanks. If the problem is not addressed soon, the situation will only worsen, with a larger, more costly soil remediation required. "It is technically impossible to clean up the water once it is contaminated, so efforts will be made to contain the liquids and dry up their sources, said K. Mike Thompson." (7) More than 800 wells have been drilled to monitor the spread of contaminants. On-site treatment has historically been proposed by The State of Washington which enforces the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Newly constructed and older facilities are targeted as the proposed option to treat the remaining wastes in the storage tanks. Pumping and treatment of the wastes was chosen as the major solution and there has been no attempts of physical containment or hydrodynamic control through extraction and injection wells. In order to expand cleanup and reduce costs the Department of Energy, Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Hanford officials have decided to increase competition among cleanup contractors and set a target endpoint for cleanup. (8) When the target endpoint is chosen and cleanup is stopped the question once again must be asked "how clean is clean?"
A Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment was performed and the facts from the test were received in April 1997.(10) The assessment evaluated risk to human health and the environment from Hanford-derived contaminants. The assessment addressed conditions just downstream and upstream from Hanford. The data samples were of Columbia River water, groundwater, external radiation, and plants and fish.
The scope of the assessment included data for twenty-eight contaminants, fifty-two animal species, and twelve human exposure scenarios. The human scenarios were evaluated for toxicity and carcinogenicty. The scenarios were broad enough to incorporate different possible doses and lifestyles from industrial workers, to recreationists, to residents. Results showed that levels of Hanford-derived contaminants in the Columbia River pose a current threat to humans who might be exposed to them. This simple assessment revealed the need for full evaluation of the sustainability of the river ecosystem and changes in the decision making on Hanford waste management, environmental restoration, and remediation. These results were posted before the news of leaking tank waste approaching the Columbia River. If a current threat to the Columbia River inhabitants near Hanford exists due only to the years of Nuclear waste storage before leaking tanks, then news of possible contaminated groundwater flowing into the river should alarm the inhabitants and the state that something needs to be done immediately.
A clean river provides food, irrigation, drinking water, and a home to its both its users and inhabitants. A clean river is a sign of life, beauty and growth. Harmful human-manufactured contaminants can kill a river. The signs of destruction can not only be seen in the river itself, but in all that depend on it to survive. Cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Site and it’s underground storage tanks must continue. Additional funds should be implemented by state and federal governments to expedite the remediation if necessary. If immediate action is not taken it will lead to the death of the Columbia River.
Looking at the aftermath of nuclear weapon production in this small area reveals how potentially immense the nuclear waste problem is world wide. Hanford, one of our countries largest weapon producing sites, produced several thousand nuclear weapons. The U.S. combined, however, produced 70,000 nuclear weapons while Russia produced 50,000. Throughout the world, over 130,000 nuclear weapons were produced, hence, the 54 million gallons of wastes produced at Hanford are only a small fraction wastes produced globally. It can be estimated that close to a billion gallons of wastes have already been generated in nuclear weapon production.
The physical, ecological, and economical costs of nuclear weapon production are immense. "More than one-third of the Department of Energy’s $18 billion dollar annual budget goes to nuclear weapons cleanup, and a quarter of that is spent at Hanford."(11) As seen at Hanford the effects on the environment are deadly and often irreversible. In 1957, a nuclear waste tank explosion in Russia left 23,000 kilometers of land in Russia contaminated, and the lands are still unusable today.(11) The costs of simply producing nuclear weapons are great enough to question the continuation of their production.
(1) The League of Women Voters. "The Nuclear Waste Primer." Pages 2-17.
Nick Lyons Books, 1985.
(2) Wald, Matthew L. "Admitting Error at Nuclear Weapons Plant." New York Times: March 23, 1998. www.cseti.com/position/addition/hanford.htm
(3) Tri-City Herald Staff. "Indians Sue Over Hanford releases." Tri-city Herald:
April 3, 1997. (several sources) www.tri-cityherald.com/doe/1997
(4) Stang, John. "Groups Criticize FFTF at Press Conference." Tri-city Herald: January 10, 1998.
(5) Solid Waste Online. "Plume of wastes from Hanford Nuclear Site Spreading."
www.solidwaste.com
(6) Stang, John. Tri-city Herald: May 2, 1997.
(7) Culverwell, Wendy. "DOE Budget For Hanford Cleanup Falls Short in 2000."
Tri-city Herald: February 27, 1998. (several sources) www.tri- cityherald.com/doe/1998.
(8) Tri-City Herald. "Hanford Changing approach to waste." April 7, 1997.
(9) Stang, John. "Hanford Advisory Board Upset by Potential Cut in Cleanup Funds."
(10) US Department of Energy. "Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment."
1997, Fact Sheet.
(11) Johnston, J. Bennett. Senator from Louisiana; Hearing before the Commitee on energy and National resources; United States Senate. March 25, 1995.