‘Just plain wrong.’ Tri-Cities leaders blast WA state over Hanford nuclear waste rule

The state of Washington is not representing the best interests of the Tri-Cities on Hanford-related matters, says a strongly worded letter from local leaders to new Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.

The critical tone of the letter is a change from earlier communications between local officials and the state on the Department of Energy’s 2019 decision to allow a new interpretation of the definition of high level radioactive waste.

Local officials have supported the new interpretation, saying it is scientifically valid and will help get some Hanford waste treated and disposed of sooner and at a lower cost.

But state Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the director of the Department of Ecology, Laura Watson, sent a letter last month to the new energy secretary asking for the Biden administration to overturn the new interpretation approved under the Trump administration.

They were joined on the letter with the Yakama Nation and with three non-government groups that serve as Hanford watchdogs — Hanford Challenge, Columbia Riverkeeper and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

It was unusual for state agencies to sign a letter to the energy secretary with watchdog groups, said Gary Petersen, the president of Tri-Cities-based Northwest Energy Associates, which advocates for a less costly cleanup of the Hanford site.

“To include that and make it sound like they represent the state is just plain wrong,” Petersen said.

Local government and economic officials responded with their own letter to the new energy secretary on Wednesday.

It was signed by the mayors of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco and West Richland; the chairmen of the Franklin and Benton county commissions; the president of the Port of Benton; the chief executive of the Tri-City Development Council; and the chairman of Hanford Communities, a coalition of local governments near Hanford.

Tri-Cities interests

“It is important for you to understand that, unfortunately, we do not believe our state government speaks for or represents the best interests of the Tri-Cities on Hanford-related matters,” they told the energy secretary.

“Conversely, we believe the state of Washington’s insistence on the status quo at Hanford, combined with delays caused by their regulatory approach, only serves to increase the risks to our community,” they said in the letter.

The state letter’s assertion that DOE’s new interpretation of the definition of high level radioactive waste ignores science is incorrect, said the Tri-Cities leaders.

The new interpretation has been supported by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine; The Government Accountability Office; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and six DOE national laboratories, it said.

“Considering that so many experts agree with the scientific merits of the HLW (high level waste) interpretation, and that it has the potential to make our community safer and expedite cleanup, we are perplexed as to why our own state government refuses to even consider exploring the potential benefits of this policy,” local leaders said.

Under U.S. law, any waste produced when fuel irradiated at Hanford reactors was chemically processed to remove plutonium is classified as high level radioactive waste.

But internationally, waste classification is based on its radiological risk — not on how waste is produced.

The 56 million gallons of radioactive waste stored in underground tanks at Hanford is by definition high level waste, created when irradiated uranium was processed to remove plutonium for the nation’s nuclear weapons program.

But 90% of it is referred to as low activity radioactive waste and managed as it if is low level rather than high level waste by agreement between the state of Washington and the federal government.

Hanford cost savings

DOE’s new policy allows the agency to reclassify radioactive waste if it determines it does not exceed certain radionuclide concentrations for low level waste or does not need to be disposed of in a deep geological repository, such as the one proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

Previously, high level waste could be reclassified, but under a more involved process that relies on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

DOE has released no plans to reclassify any Hanford waste under the new interpretation, but it has applied it to a small amount of waste at DOE’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina that was then shipped outside of South Carolina.

Some local leaders and Northwest Energy Associates see opportunities for some low activity tank waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation to be treated by mixing it into a concrete-like grout form and then shipping it to a repository in Texas for disposal.

DOE told Congress that reclassifying waste could save up to $210 billion at Hanford by allowing tank waste to be grouted rather than vitrifying it, or turning it into a stable glass form.

But watchdog groups are concerned that the new interpretation of high level waste would open the door to grouting waste in underground tanks rather than emptying the tanks.

The letter signed by the state and watchdog groups called the new interpretation “a matter of extraordinary concern.”

Abandon waste?

It “lays the groundwork for the Department to abandon significant amounts of radioactive waste in Washington state precipitously close to the Columbia River,” the state letter said.

It would create a long-term risk of harm to the residents of the Pacific Northwest and the natural resources critical to the region, it said.

“Under the previous federal administration, Energy attempted to grant itself the authority to define what is and is not high-level waste without oversight or consent from regulators or the surrounding community,” David Bowen, the state’s nuclear waste program manager, said Thursday. “This sets a dangerous precedent giving the responsible and liable entity full authority to regulate itself.”

But local leaders said that using the new interpretation of the definition of high level waste “represents perhaps the single greatest opportunity to expedite cleanup and reduce risks to the Tri-Cities while transforming our community into a pilot for tomorrow’s clean energy future.”

The Tri-Cities already is a hub for clean energy production in the Northwest and local leaders see opportunities for more as Hanford is cleaned up.

But successful environmental cleanup efforts across the DOE complex will require a genuine effort by DOE, its regulators and those with the most to gain from Hanford cleanup to reach consensus on a path forward, local leaders said.

“Unfortunately, despite our efforts to encourage state of Washington officials to work with DOE, we have not seen any evidence to indicate that they are willing to do so,” said the letter from Tri-Cities leaders to the new energy secretary.

“We are hopeful, however, that with a new administration and under your leadership, DOE will be able to bring the state of Washington back to the table in good faith,” the letter said.

This story was originally published March 4, 2021 at 10:29 AM.