Our Voice: Here’s why EPA made the right call keeping Hanford manager in Tri-Cities
When looking for a new hire, the main concern is typically who should get the job.
But as the Environmental Protection Agency searched for its next Hanford project manager, Tri-Citians also were left wondering where that person would be based.
That’s because the EPA suggested the new supervisor might end up in Seattle.
The Hanford Advisory Board — and this newspaper’s editorial board — objected vehemently to the idea of this top Hanford official working anywhere but the Richland office.
So we were relieved last week when EPA leaders announced they had selected Dave Einan — an environmental engineer from within the Hanford Project Office — to head the local team. Thankfully, he will remain in Richland.
We had said the thought of supervising Hanford from afar shouldn’t even be considered.
The EPA is one of the federal government’s monitoring agencies for Hanford cleanup, and we believed the local boss should be part of the Tri-City community.
In addition, if the job had been re-located to Seattle, that would have left the Richland office with just four people assigned to keep an eye on Hanford cleanup.
Compare that to the Washington State Department of Ecology, another Hanford regulator, which has about 70 employees based at its Nuclear Waste Program in Richland.
If anything, we think the EPA probably could use more staff in the Tri-Cities — not less.
The need to find a new person came about when Dennis Faulk, the former EPA Hanford project manager in Richland, retired last August. Faulk had the job for more than eight years, and ironically, he was among the officials who helped establish the Hanford Advisory Board.
HAB is made up of members representing interests such as Hanford workers, environmental groups, labor, business and tribes. It has been a force in Hanford cleanup, with significant influence over regulators.
Officials with HAB were adamant the new EPA Hanford program manager should be based near Hanford.
“The HAB urges you in the strongest terms to locate the manager you select to replace Mr. Faulk in the Richland office,” Susan Leckband, chairwoman of the advisory board, wrote in a letter to the EPA.
She noted that the EPA Hanford program manager should be close to Hanford in order to provide a prompt response to unusual incidents at the nuclear site.
In addition, the new manager needs to maintain “a confident presence in the Tri-Cities to recognize and understand community and stakeholder environmental concerns,” she had said. We echoed her concerns.
The 580-square-mile nuclear reservation is contaminated from World War II and Cold War production of plutonium for the nation’s nuclear weapons program. The federal government made this mess and has a duty to clean it up.
Our community has had to live next door to Hanford, so federal officials helping with its cleanup should live here as well.
We are relieved the EPA did not dismiss the concerns of the community and the Hanford Advisory Board.
This story was originally published January 31, 2018 at 5:03 PM with the headline "Our Voice: Here’s why EPA made the right call keeping Hanford manager in Tri-Cities."