Hanford Cleanup Strategy

[High Plains Drifter <magna1@jps.net>]

Here is a news blurb from that came across my desk today.  I
find it incredulous that our national leaders are willing to
spend 85 Billion dollars (that's with a B, a big B) to clean
up Hanford.

   Office of Public Affairs
  In the News Today...March 3, 1998

RICHLAND, WASH. -- The Department of Energy says it is
trying to finish the environmental cleanup of 43
contaminated sites by 2006, but that the Hanford nuclear
reservation and nine other sites will require a longer
clean-up time.  DOE's estimate for cleaning up Hanford is
now $85.3 billion.  The Associated Press, 3/3.

Be fore warned this is a longone.......

 Applying a little risk perspective my back of the envelope
calculations show that we should not be cleaning up the
place (for what grand purpose I do not know, Shirley we
don't need any more fireworks stands or gambling casinos, or
wheat in Washington).  I propose based on the discussion
below that we should just get Hanford in a safe condition
and lock the gates.  This is a very realistic view and
think that it will be the case anyway, since we are only
going to have an 8 Billion budget surplus this year and DOE
is not going to get squat anyway).

 The Hanford site is comprised of roughly (engineering term)
560 square miles and loosely (a geologist term used in
California mostly) resembles a large rock garden surrounded
by a river and a mountain range, and is also populated with
a lot of rattle snakes, and I almost forgot a  commercial
nuclear power plant.  Now assuming that the 85 Billion
dollars is a rough estimate of the total cost for the
Hanford clean up (low side), this alone would put the price
tag per acre at about $237,000 (which can only go up).  Wow,
this makes California's Silicon Valley real-estate rates
look like they are for desert property.  Hey, that's what
Hanford looks like?

 Currently, the potential yearly dose from all pathways to
the maximally exposed individual (1992 Hanford Environmental
Report) is 0.02 mrem (which excludes the additional dose
from the potassium in the roughly 10,000 remediation
consultants in the area).

  How about this for an cost benefit ALARA analysis:

  Even if the dose due to recalcitrant residual
radioactivity rose to 0.04 mrem per person per year per
maximally exposed person (2X) the cost benefit analysis for
ALARA purposes indicates that for each mrem of dose saved
would cost approximately 1.7 Trillion dollars (big "T" this
time).  Evidently they are going to have to increase the
offsite releases to justify the cost benefit analysis.  Calm
down I was just kidding.....

 Now, I know some will say, what is he so concerned about we
have did less for a higher cost/unit at some other site
remediations (non-nuclear and nuclear)!  Hell, I am just
giving you some food for thought.  I have attend some of the
earlier town meetings regarding the cleanup, reviewed the
1991 five year cleanup plan (my where does the time go) and
have visited the TriCities often in the last 15 years.
Furthermore, I have personally seen some of the folly
associated with the cleanup, such as the digging up of 3-5
barrels of uranium tainted waste that had been buried for 30
years or more.  Evidently someone thought the hexane solvent
would  devastate the ecological balance of the area if the
hexane leached into the ground upon deterioration of the
barrels.   Isn't hexane a volatile?  Workers were put at
more of a health & injury risk just working with the
mechanical equipment and wearing respirators, than the
residual radioactivity and hexane (which would be long gone)
expected to be uncovered.

Radiation hysteria: Now if a major cleanup is carried out
there has to be an increase in the population's dose due to
the fact, that if 0.02 mrem results from doing nothing, then
logically doses should increase to someone due to the nature
of the beast and translocation of the debris (workers bring
home fugitive amounts of radioactivity from cleanup
operations, gamma doses from transportation of radioactive
materials through the TriCities, fugitive airborne
radioactivity wafting over the country side from cleanup
operations, etc.).

 Do you really think the site will be turned into an
Agricultural Mecca during the next millennium?  I do believe
that the waste tanks and Pu facilities should be put in a
safe condition and entombed in place.  Just try getting that
waste into Nevada, where by the way all radioactive and
mixed waste should be stored.  There are some nice glass
lined sink holes out in them thar hills and desert.

 Back to the subject: Recorded history has shown that when
Hanford was operating at its height and filthiness, pumping
highly contaminated reactor coolant water and airborne
effluents into the surrounding environment, the results were
not that disastrous and the value of life was not diminished
to any great extent.  Mother Nature sure cleaned up the
Columbia (including the fish and ducks) once the source term
was removed.  This can not be said for some other commercial
endeavors in the course of history.

  Therefore,

The $85 Billion (85, 000 million dollars) is earmarked for
Hanford should be use as follows:

 The population of the TriCities and surrounding Counties is
roughly  400,000 persons (give or take 10,000 transient
consultants and migratory farm hands).  If the large dollar
figure given above was distributed among those with
permanent addresses (no P.O. Boxes please) my rough
calculations indicated that each man, women and child (2.3
children) would receive:  $212,500 (tax free since it is our
tax dollars anyway).   A family of four would receive on the
hand of 850,000 dollars.  Now if that was offered to them
with the stipulation that they move out of the area (which
if you have ever been there you might agree with me that it
would be a no brainer choice) or at least to Yakima (80
miles to the northwest) there would be nary a soul left to
receive any exposure risk. For those that insist on having
the site cleaned up (which their numbers will diminish
greatly by the $200 thousand dollar buy out offer), I would
enroll them in a remedial math classes and make them live in
the TriCities area till the site is cleaned up.
Furthermore, we could reduce the payoff to 1/2 the stated
amount (still a family of four would receive in the
neighborhood of 425,000 dollars) and give 40 Billion to the
State of Washington to watch over and maintain the site for
research purposes, which would allow the politicians and
consultants to keep receiving a pay check.

I expect much flak from the above, but hell everyone else
has had a say in how to cleanup Hanford using my tax
dollars, I figured this would be a good forum for my views
on the subject.  By the way with the endangered species act
about to the invoked for the declining salmon population it
is unlikely they (Fish & Game...) will allow any new farming
ventures near the majestic Columbia and Snake rivers.

Let's see, back when we were dumping giga quantities of
radionuclides into the air, rivers and ground life went on
as usual.  Yes, I know the fish and ducks were pretty hot,
but at least it was not mercury.  Now that the larger source
of radioactivity  has stopped and is basically contained
above and below ground it is a national hazard.  Evidently
some radionuclides are still making their way to the river.
If we did nothing but ensure all remaining sources of
radionuclide contamination were secure then the levels in
the environment would diminish with time (remember T1/2).
Remember what the area was used for before Hanford?  Also,
please remember the ALARA cost benefit analysis (pretty
quick and dirty) back some two pages ago.

As most Native Americans in the Washington know the site is
only suitable for casinos and firework stands.

I encourage others to think about what can be done with the
Hanford site if you were given 85 Billion dollars.  Try
thinking about the education of the current crop of children
and improving the welfare of our Native American brothers
and sisters.

Questions:  Am I crazy?  Am I the only one that sees stuff
this way?

High Plains Drifter, CHP, AMA, IBA
magna1@jps.net

The views put forth above are my own and do not necessarily
reflect the beliefs or policies of the USNRC or any other
governmental entity, and certainly not any environmental
remediation consultants.