Dec. 15, 1999: Critics cry foul in DOE's handling of Hanford

Critics cry foul in DOE's handling of Hanford

This story was published Dec. 15, 1999
By John Stang
Herald staff writer

Critics have accused the Department of Energy of shrugging its shoulders at dealing with Hanford's underground contaminants seeping into the Columbia River.

"There is absolutely no plan today to protect the river from contaminants in the ground water. ... We want action. We want some protection," said Gerald Pollet, director of Heart of America Northwest, at a Tuesday press conference in Richland.

Norm Buske, a Government Accountability Project scientist, said: "What we basically have is a whitewash (of the problem)."

Buske, Pollet and Tom Carpenter, attorney for Buske's group, argued less-deserving Hanford projects are taking money and attention from studying and fixing the problem of subterranean contaminants oozing into the Hanford Reach, the last major salmon spawning area on the Columbia River.

Pollet contended less-deserving projects include studying the potential revival of the Fast Flux Test Facility, Hanford's overhead and some salaries of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory scientists he believes are responsible for the so-called whitewash.

Another alleged less-deserving program is the demolition and sealing of old rivershore reactors, which Pollet contended is a project wanted only by the contractors being paid to do it.

Pollet and Carpenter called for firm deadlines on studying and getting rid of the seeping contaminants.

Meanwhile, DOE's Hanford Manager Keith Klein said Hanford's cleanup focuses on protecting the river.

The removal of spent nuclear fuel from the leak-prone rivershore K Basins and the long-term effort to remove and glassify wastes from central Hanford's tanks both address the seeping wastes problem, Klein said. Those are Hanford's top two priorities.

Hanford has removed 2 million tons of contaminated soil from near the river so far, and it has pumped out and treated 1 billion liters of contaminated ground water in 1999.

Hanford spent $40 million on pumping, treating, studying and planning work for the contaminants in 1999, Klein said. That is supposed to increase to about $45 million in 2000.

Klein said he hopes to have a better picture of the problem in about six months.

"This is a complex site," he said. "If you're looking for a simple date where everything is fixed, you're not going to find that in the near term. You will find a collection of dates and remedies for various hot spots that is consistent with the Tri-Party Agreement."

Klein said the ongoing demolition of old reactors is important because the buildings would fall apart more during any delays and add to the rivershore pollution.

Subterranean Hanford is a crazy quilt of contaminants oozing toward the river. Buske and Sierra Club ecotoxicolist Robert King used Tuesday's press conference to announce observations on strontium readings near H Reactor and the threat to salmon hatching.

Buske, PNNL and the state health department routinely sample and analyze vegetation along the rivershore to keep tabs on the contaminants. Buske and PNNL scientists disagree on how much strontium is reaching the river. Buske argues that PNNL is underestimating the problem.

Buske, PNNL and the state sampled leaves from one mulberry tree near H Reactor - with Buske and PNNL agreeing the leaves' strontium concentration was 2.4 to 2.8 picocuries per gram.

But PNNL and Buske radically disagree on calculating what those tree numbers mean to the Columbia and to eggs and newly hatched salmon in the river gravel.

Strontium-laced water either seeps into the river's edge or up through the gravel. Once leaving the gravel, it is diluted by the river's huge volume.

Buske and PNNL question each others' study methodologies and background literature.

Buske and King focused on the following numbers: The federal drinking water limit for strontium is 8 picocuries per liter. Buske calculated 80 picocuries of strontium per liter is bubbling through the gravel offshore of H Reactor. King said tests show a danger level of 5,000 picocuries for Atlantic salmon.

PNNL has cited an international standard of how much radiation a fish can safely absorb - one rad per day. Buske was aghast at that figure, saying it translates to 1.75 million picocuries of strontium per liter.

Ted Poston, the PNNL scientist in charge of the issue, agreed with the 1.75 million picocuries of strontium per liter figure.

But PNNL's study showed a fish egg absorbing 0.000005 rad per day of strontium at that spot. That translates to 8.7 picocuries. PNNL's highest river reading in that area was 25 picocuries. Poston said Buske needs to add numerous extra readings and factors to accurately map the spread of strontium.