Feds look to ship some Hanford waste to New Mexico
»Play Video
RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) - Federal officials are looking to ship some 3 million gallons of radioactive waste from Washington state to New Mexico, giving the government more flexibility to deal with leaking tanks at Hanford Nuclear Reservation, officials said Wednesday.
The Department of Energy said its preferred plan would ultimately dispose of the waste in a massive repository - called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - near Carlsbad, N.M, where radioactive materials are buried in rooms excavated in vast salt beds nearly a half-mile underground.
The federal proposal was quickly met with criticism from a New Mexico environmental group that said the state permit allowing the government to bury waste at the plant would not allow for shipments from Hanford, the nation's most contaminated nuclear site.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said WIPP specifically prohibits waste from Hanford and any proposal to modify permit language in this case would need "strong justification and public input."
"WIPP has demonstrated success in its handling of defense TRU waste," Udall said in a statement. "With regard to Hanford waste, I urge all parties involved to exhibit caution and scientific integrity to ensure that DOE is abiding by the law and that the waste classifications are justified."
The waste near Carlsbad includes such things as clothing, tools and other debris.
The transfer from Washington would target so-called transuranic waste, which is less radioactive than some of the sludge at Hanford, and accounts for a fraction of the roughly 50 million gallons of waste there currently. Federal officials have identified six leaking tanks, and five of the leakers contain transuranic waste, said Tom Fletcher, assistant manager of the tank farms for the Energy Department.
Dave Huizenga, head of the Energy Department's Environmental Management program, said the transfer would not impact the safe operations of the New Mexico facility.
"This alternative, if selected for implementation in a record of decision, could enable the Department to reduce potential health and environmental risk in Washington State," said Huizenga.
Don Hancock, of the Albuquerque-based watchdog group Southwest Research and Information opposing the transfer to New Mexico, said this is not the first time DOE has proposed bringing more waste to the plant near Carlsbad.
"This is a bad, old idea that's been uniformly rejected on a bipartisan basis by politicians when it came up in the past, and it's been strongly opposed by citizen groups like mine and others," Hancock said. "It's also clear that it's illegal."
Disposal operations near Carlsbad began in March 1999. Since then, more than 85,000 cubic meters of waste have been shipped to WIPP from a dozen sites around the country.
Any additional waste from Hanford would have to be analyzed to ensure it could be stored at the site because a permit issued by the New Mexico Environment Department dictates what kinds of waste and the volumes that can be stored there.
WIPP spokeswoman Deb Gill said the facility does not anticipate any problems with its existing capacity as permitted under law.
Officials estimate that some 7,000 to 40,000 drums of waste would be trucked to New Mexico, depending on how the waste is treated and its final form.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee says the proposal is a good start in the process of getting rid of Hanford's waste.
"I will be insistent that the full cycle of technical review and permitting is resolved so that any grouted material does not remain in the state of Washington," Inslee said.
Inslee travelled Wednesday to Hanford to learn more about leaking radioactive waste tanks there. His trip came a day after federal officials acknowledged budget cuts may disrupt efforts to empty the aging vessels.
Inslee said sending waste to New Mexico is two to four years away. He also said a system is in place to treat the groundwater should contamination from the leaks reach it.
In the meantime, Inslee plans to push Congress to fully fund this proposal, saying "every single dollar of it is justified."
South-central Washington's Hanford Nuclear Reservation is home to 177 underground tanks, which hold toxic and radioactive waste left from decades of plutonium production for the country's nuclear weapons arsenal.
While state and federal officials have stressed that the leaks pose no immediate risk to public safety or the environment, Inslee says Washington state has a "zero tolerance" policy for leaks.
In a letter to Inslee, the Department of Energy estimated it will have to eliminate $92 million for its Office of River Protection, which oversees efforts to empty the tanks and build a plant to treat the waste. The cuts will result in furloughs or layoffs impacting about 2,800 contract workers, the agency said.
Inslee spokesman David Postman said the governor's initial concern is for the workers, but he emphasized budget constraints cannot be an excuse to delay response to the leaking tanks.
The U.S. government spends some $2 billion each year on cleanup at Hanford - one-third of its entire budget for nuclear cleanup nationally - so the project is still in line to receive most of its usual federal funding.
The tanks hold millions of gallons of waste and have long surpassed their intended 20-year lifespan. The Energy Department has said the leaking tanks could be releasing as much as 1,000 gallons a year.
State and federal officials have said the leaking materials pose no immediate threat to public safety or the environment, but the leaks raise concerns about the potential for groundwater to be contaminated and, ultimately, reach the neighboring Columbia River about 5 miles away.
Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman wrote in his letter layoffs and furloughs may curtail progress related to closing the tanks.
The cuts within the Energy Department's budget are the result of debate in Congress, where Republicans and President Barack Obama are fighting over how to curtail the nation's debt.
Energy Department officials said their budget was being reduced by some $1.9 billion.
The Department of Energy said its preferred plan would ultimately dispose of the waste in a massive repository - called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - near Carlsbad, N.M, where radioactive materials are buried in rooms excavated in vast salt beds nearly a half-mile underground.
The federal proposal was quickly met with criticism from a New Mexico environmental group that said the state permit allowing the government to bury waste at the plant would not allow for shipments from Hanford, the nation's most contaminated nuclear site.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said WIPP specifically prohibits waste from Hanford and any proposal to modify permit language in this case would need "strong justification and public input."
"WIPP has demonstrated success in its handling of defense TRU waste," Udall said in a statement. "With regard to Hanford waste, I urge all parties involved to exhibit caution and scientific integrity to ensure that DOE is abiding by the law and that the waste classifications are justified."
The waste near Carlsbad includes such things as clothing, tools and other debris.
The transfer from Washington would target so-called transuranic waste, which is less radioactive than some of the sludge at Hanford, and accounts for a fraction of the roughly 50 million gallons of waste there currently. Federal officials have identified six leaking tanks, and five of the leakers contain transuranic waste, said Tom Fletcher, assistant manager of the tank farms for the Energy Department.
Dave Huizenga, head of the Energy Department's Environmental Management program, said the transfer would not impact the safe operations of the New Mexico facility.
"This alternative, if selected for implementation in a record of decision, could enable the Department to reduce potential health and environmental risk in Washington State," said Huizenga.
Don Hancock, of the Albuquerque-based watchdog group Southwest Research and Information opposing the transfer to New Mexico, said this is not the first time DOE has proposed bringing more waste to the plant near Carlsbad.
"This is a bad, old idea that's been uniformly rejected on a bipartisan basis by politicians when it came up in the past, and it's been strongly opposed by citizen groups like mine and others," Hancock said. "It's also clear that it's illegal."
Disposal operations near Carlsbad began in March 1999. Since then, more than 85,000 cubic meters of waste have been shipped to WIPP from a dozen sites around the country.
Any additional waste from Hanford would have to be analyzed to ensure it could be stored at the site because a permit issued by the New Mexico Environment Department dictates what kinds of waste and the volumes that can be stored there.
WIPP spokeswoman Deb Gill said the facility does not anticipate any problems with its existing capacity as permitted under law.
Officials estimate that some 7,000 to 40,000 drums of waste would be trucked to New Mexico, depending on how the waste is treated and its final form.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee says the proposal is a good start in the process of getting rid of Hanford's waste.
"I will be insistent that the full cycle of technical review and permitting is resolved so that any grouted material does not remain in the state of Washington," Inslee said.
Inslee travelled Wednesday to Hanford to learn more about leaking radioactive waste tanks there. His trip came a day after federal officials acknowledged budget cuts may disrupt efforts to empty the aging vessels.
Inslee said sending waste to New Mexico is two to four years away. He also said a system is in place to treat the groundwater should contamination from the leaks reach it.
In the meantime, Inslee plans to push Congress to fully fund this proposal, saying "every single dollar of it is justified."
South-central Washington's Hanford Nuclear Reservation is home to 177 underground tanks, which hold toxic and radioactive waste left from decades of plutonium production for the country's nuclear weapons arsenal.
While state and federal officials have stressed that the leaks pose no immediate risk to public safety or the environment, Inslee says Washington state has a "zero tolerance" policy for leaks.
In a letter to Inslee, the Department of Energy estimated it will have to eliminate $92 million for its Office of River Protection, which oversees efforts to empty the tanks and build a plant to treat the waste. The cuts will result in furloughs or layoffs impacting about 2,800 contract workers, the agency said.
Inslee spokesman David Postman said the governor's initial concern is for the workers, but he emphasized budget constraints cannot be an excuse to delay response to the leaking tanks.
The U.S. government spends some $2 billion each year on cleanup at Hanford - one-third of its entire budget for nuclear cleanup nationally - so the project is still in line to receive most of its usual federal funding.
The tanks hold millions of gallons of waste and have long surpassed their intended 20-year lifespan. The Energy Department has said the leaking tanks could be releasing as much as 1,000 gallons a year.
State and federal officials have said the leaking materials pose no immediate threat to public safety or the environment, but the leaks raise concerns about the potential for groundwater to be contaminated and, ultimately, reach the neighboring Columbia River about 5 miles away.
Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman wrote in his letter layoffs and furloughs may curtail progress related to closing the tanks.
The cuts within the Energy Department's budget are the result of debate in Congress, where Republicans and President Barack Obama are fighting over how to curtail the nation's debt.
Energy Department officials said their budget was being reduced by some $1.9 billion.
Next they will say they are Planning to send it through the USPS. 1) How do they plan to send it to New Mexico? 2) How are they going to make it Safe for transpoting or what are they going to transport it in? 3) How are they going to protect that much waste durring the shipping and waiting to ship it? I do not think this is a good Idea for the reason that the Gov. can not come up with a budget let alone move Toxic Waste through how many States???????????
Why don't we put it on a Soyuz Rocket and send it into the sun? a garbage barge of sorts. 35M degrees would consume it. Of course the potential for disaster as its leaving the atmosphere could be catastrophic, but that is just another engineering obstacle to overcome.
@Quaoptician Or even put it on Mercury.
Keep it in Washington.  They have been the recipients of  hundreds of millions dollars of taxpayer dollars which was supposed to be used to clean up the mess.  They basically wasted the money, so they should have to suffer, not the people in any other state.
Good job, New Mexico, for standing up to the DOE which should be renamed DUH. No state in its right mind would allow out of state nuke waste to be sent in.Â
Lets send it to IRAN.
Haul nuclear waste but do not want coal to pass through the NW
@Bert I was thinking the same thing, no coal because of the possibility of emitting dust as its traveling, heavens! Of course the containers the waste would be shipped in is almost foolproof.
@Quaoptician @Bert Would not the rain keep the dust down most of the time? The good news is china has to be the number one polluter in the world. We should furnish coal to china and get them dependent on it so when the war starts we can take it away.
This comment has been deleted
@feral They already put waste in most drinking water, its called sodium-fluoride.Â
@KATUNews whoops, New Mexico?
@jyu_oregonian Yep, you caught us. Oops. It's fixed. Thanks!
One thing worth noting is that they want to ship it to New Mexico because the tanks are full at hanford and they have nowhere to put the waste from the newly leaking tanks! Boy doesn't that sound swell!?
We could just deposit it along the southern border. Anybody who glows gets deported!
Not sure you could pay me enough want to do that job...
@FreedomRocks I used to Vol. to clean up Toxic Sites. Did not get paid and loved my work. I would Vol. for this if I could Supervise to make sure it was done right and not half A--ed. I can no longer do the work but I can make sure that it gets done right the first time. Just think how much money that would save?? I would do it for FREE just to besure that it would never have to be done again..
How about Mexico? Ship 1 ton of waste south of the border for every illegal in our country.
How about to Yucca Mountain, which was built to store nuclear waste, before Obama promised to defund it for political reasons?
How about shipping a lot of it to North Korea?
@jpkÂ
No, the ship would sink and the waste would wash up on our beaches.
Wow! That's positive thinking there. But at least it would wipe out invasive species on the coast.......... or many non-invasive species also!
Forget New Mexico. Ship it to Mexico in exchange for the illegals. Make a deal, Obama, radioactive waste for amnesty. Fair is fair. We take their crud. They take our crud.
@hankhandsome.. My thoughts exactly.
I have a better idea, ship it to D.C.
@oldcouvguy How about Old Mexico ??
@uknow2Â @oldcouvguyÂ
Can we split it up and help everyone?
Ah, yes. Blame the lack of a permanent nuclear storage site on the 2013 budget cuts. But the Yucca Mtn site was supposed to have been ready in 2010. Why wasn't it? Mostly because Senator Reid (who happens to be from Nevada) with the assistance of Pres Obama, cut off the funding to complete the facility. And they cut off that funding years ago. Basically it was NIMBY action by Reid. Now everyone else suffers the consequences
@Nobody Please post your address. We can then send this stuff to you.
@Mike @Nobody BS cowardly replies like this is why I'm going to help the Republicans make a comeback.
Obama PROMISED TO DEFUND YUCCA MOUNTAIN in a campaign speech in September, 2007, and the GAO said it was funded for political, not technical or environmental reasons.   Look it up.