![[Image Description: A weathered sign posted by the United States Department of Energy, titled "Hanford Site" and reading "RESTRICTED GOVERNMENT AREA," followed by unintelligible text.]](https://gardell.ds.lib.uw.edu/ecotox/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/hanfordbanner-1.jpg)
Background
In the eastern parcel of Washington State, adjacent to Richland, Washington, the Hanford military site occupied 560 square miles of semiarid land (Figure 1). The overall mission of the site’s operation in 1943 was to help facilitate the progress of the Manhattan Project, the creation of the Atomic Bomb that would later be used in World War II (Melosi 1994). By 1945, just nearly over two years later, the plutonium manufactured from Hanford was detonated over Nagasaki, Japan (Gosling 2010). Hanford became an epicenter for the United States military’s plutonium production, which led to an exponential expansion of the site to accommodate for the high demand at hand. By the mid-1960’s, the site had added nine nuclear reactors to its original operation (Gerber 1992).
The construction of Hanford came at a price that was felt by those who inhabited areas near the site. In particular, two communities of people were disproportionately affected and felt its initial impacts the hardest. These were the local farming communities and Indigenous people of the region (Clarke 1999). At early stages of the facility’s construction in 1943, the Wanapum tribe was asked to leave their homes and relocate to wherever else. This was also an issue since the government officials did not give them a place to stay, nor help relocate the affected individuals. It was clear that if any particular group resisted any new sanctions, the military would enforce their jurisdiction on either Indigenous or farmers’ land (Gosling 2010). Today, Hanford is no longer operational, yet the disastrous effects of its pollution and waste still remain a threat to people who live nearby. 170,000 people in local communities, located near Hanford, are affected due to traces of uranium and TCE that have been detected in the groundwater, which is primarily used for drinking water (Sample et al. 2015). In the United States, the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for contamination in drinking water in accordance with uranium is 30 µg/L (EPA 2006). For TCE, the MCL is 5 µg/L (EPA 2000). Baseline concentrations of uranium had results well above the 30 µg/L cleanup level, and TCE concentrations in the groundwater aquifer were detected at more than 100 µg/L (United States Department of Energy 2022).
Figure 1. Reactor N, in foreview with Reactors KE and KW in the background at the Hanford site alongside the Columbia River. Sourced by Wikimedia Commons and United States Department of Energy 2008.
Contaminant Details
The Hanford site contains nuclear fuel recycling and plutonium production that occurs along the Columbia River. The nuclear wastes produced contained about 200kg of plutonium distributed among other mixed waste components and radioactive materials that were released into trenches, fields, and unlined cribs along the Hanford Site (Baumer et al. 2022). When plutonium goes through the organic phase in the soil, it can only be under acidic conditions with high nitrate concentration. If the nitrate concentrations are reduced or if the pH increases, this can lead plutonium to move into the aqueous phase from the organic phase (Baumer et al. 2022). Plutonium was pumped and received from recuplex processing waste that involved nitric acid dissolution of plutonium scraps, TBP is an organic solvent that was used to extract plutonium-nitrate complexes into the organic phase (Baumer et al. 2022).
The second most prevalent metal at the Hanford site is aluminum (III) (Page et al. 2020). Hanford’s radioactive waste has been stored under basic conditions for about 30 years in underground tanks, or sometimes even longer than 70 years in older tanks (Page et al. 2020). This accumulation of waste into tanks has led to aluminum becoming crystallized into the mineral known as gibbsite [γ-Al(OH)3]. Gibbsite is a soil mineral that is found in weathered soil across the world and that can range in different particle sizes and shapes (Page et al. 2020). Gibbsite nodules are commonly found in acidic, weathered soils. Thus, the presence of gibbsite in Hanford’s alkaline soil contrasts with that found in acidic soils at other sites.
At the Hanford site, nano-sized particles of about 1 mm are important to consider in waste treatment processes, yet Page et al. (2020) emphasizes the importance of large particles instead. This larger size is significant for the underground tanks storing waste, because the larger these particles are, the more challenging they are to suspend into a pipeline for removal from the tanks (Page et al. 2020). The aluminum refineries have shorter intervals that last hours to weeks, whereas alkaline nuclear waste storage can last decades. From the shorter periods of time, the gibbsite agglomerates are less than 100 microns in diameter (Page et al. 2022). In contrast, the radioactive storage waste has been growing over 40 years and gibbsite agglomerates in the Hanford site had grown up to 7 cm in diameter (Page et al. 2022). Large gibbsite agglomerates can form in both alkaline environments and acidic environments in soils.
Health Effects and Environmental Injustices
The Columbia River, a 1,200-mile-long waterway running through the former Hanford site and flowing into the Pacific Ocean, is of major concern for heavy metal and radioactive contamination. In fact, engineers on the Manhattan Project were concerned about polluting the river prior to the construction of Hanford, but the interests of the U.S. military outweighed any possible environmental repercussions (Clarke 1999). Ecologically, the river serves a vital role as the spawning site for Columbia River Chinook salmon, a major food source for the local tribes that subsist on the surrounding natural resources. According to the Washington Against Nuclear Weapons Coalition (WANWC), affected tribes include the Wanapum tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Colville and Umatilla Reservations, Yakima Nation, and the Nez Perce (WANWC [date unknown]). Treaty rights allow tribes to fish at any “usual and accustomed” locations (Clarke 1999), which includes areas of the Columbia River that run directly through the former plutonium production site. It was concluded that ingestion of fish from the Columbia River was the dominant pathway of pollutant exposure in the local communities (Grogan et al. 2002). Thus, the land guaranteed by treaty for tribes to subsist on was contaminated by military operations without the consent of the people it would ultimately affect. In addition to its use as a source of food, the Columbia River is also deeply tied to tribal culture, religion, and traditions (Clarke 1999).
Another major concern is pollutant exposure and subsequent adverse health effects in local populations. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) created the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project, with responsibilities later being transferred to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that aimed to conduct frequent studies to monitor the quantity and type of radioactive pollution in the environment surrounding Hanford. In addition, there was a mandate by U.S. Congress in 1988 to conduct the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study (HTDS), which concluded that there was no increased risk of thyroid disease for those affected by Hanford’s pollution (CDC 2019). Studies have also been conducted to determine the risk of radiological exposure and adverse health effects from the consumption of local wildlife, which showed that the current radionuclide concentrations in fish and terrestrial animals typically fell within (or often well below) the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) guidelines for safe consumption (Delistraty et al. 2010). It is noted that the majority of the exposure via ingestion occurred between 1952 and 1964, as this corresponds to the time of the highest release of pollutants from the reactors (Grogan et al. 2002). That being said, it is important to note that the local tribes lead subsistence lifestyles, consuming on average 70g/day of fish as compared to the 6.3g/day that the remainder of the general population consumes (Delistray et al. 2010). Thus, local Indigenous populations are more likely to suffer from adverse health effects as a result of this increased consumption.
Since the discontinuation of activity at Hanford, strides have been made to lessen the severity of the environmental injustices that the local tribes are experiencing. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed and made tribal governments eligible for grants due to their status as potentially affected populations. This act gave the DOE the responsibility of utilizing “deep geologic repositories” for underground storage of nuclear waste (EPA 2013); however, monitoring of the site revealed that several of the containers buried around Hanford are now leaking toxic pollutants into the environment, with tank B-109 leaking an estimated 3.5 gallons per day (Washington State Department of Ecology 2021). The DOE has given funding to support the tribes’ involvement in decision-making regarding remediation efforts and actions taken at Hanford (Clarke 1999). In addition, groups like the Hanford Tribal Service Program prioritize community outreach and education for tribes in the area affected by Hanford’s pollution (Jensen 1996).
The timeline of events and legislations related to the Hanford nuclear site are summarized in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Timeline of events and legislations relating to the Hanford site, from 1943 to 1990. Created with BioRender by Victoria Puryear.
Challenges for Remediation
There are a couple types of challenges for remediation at the Hanford site that are relevant today, despite community education efforts and tribal involvement in Hanford remediation decision-making.
One type of challenge involves the remaining contaminants present in the soil. As stated earlier, there has been a recent discovery of 7-centimeter-wide chunks of gibbsite in alkaline soil (Page et al. 2020). The problem with these solids in nuclear waste is that they would persist even when subjected to jet slurry procedures, in which highly-pressurized fluids, or slurries, are used to pulverize or erode away features in a given medium, such as soil (Page et al. 2020). This is consistent with the gibbsite’s continuous persistence at the Hanford site.
Another contaminant-associated challenge for remediation relates to the partitioning of plutonium, or in other words, the types of soil layers, or phases with which plutonium associates. Plutonium associated with water in the soil may pollute groundwater, but plutonium that moves into hydrophobic soil layers would no longer pose this risk. Unfortunately, plutonium only moves into the organic phase under acidic (low pH) and high nitrate concentration conditions, both of which are transient and dependent on location within the soil (Baumer et al. 2022). In other words, only when the pH of the soil dips and where nitrate is accumulated would plutonium move into the organic phase of soil, where it could consequently be extracted by organic solvent methods.
The other type of challenge that complicates approaches to remediation is the potential for post-remediation risks. In this regard, the Hanford site is broken up into areas called cleanup evaluation units, or EUs. 61% of EUs are considered to be at increased risk of post-remediation events (Burger et al. 2020). We want to achieve remediation of the site, so what concern do these “post-remediation events” pose?
Post-remediation events are events that would occur after remediation has completed, and the “risk” consists of events that would negatively impact ecological health, human health, or both. Risks specific to the Hanford site include the movement of invasive species into the ecological niches of the newly-reestablished native species present at the site; the use of pesticides against these invasive species; and the compaction of soil as human activity on the site increases due to improved aesthetic value and ecological health of the area (Burger et al. 2020). Because ecological health would again diminish from these events, and the use of pesticides on invasive species may also contaminate groundwater and affect nearby human populations all over again, a consequential risk of these combined events is to return to remediation efforts on the site (Burger et al. 2020). Even if the methods of resumed remediation differ from those in initial efforts, the reliance of remediation efforts in this way not only strains the environment, but financial resources that are used to allow for such means as well.
Thus, the challenges towards remediation fall into two categories: remediation stage and post-remediation stage. These challenges are summarized in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Summary of remediation stage and post-remediation stage challenges towards successful remediation of the Hanford site. Remediation stage challenges include the persistence of large gibbsite chunks in alkaline soil and the restriction of plutonium to the aqueous phase. Post-remediation stage challenges include the presence of invasive species, consequentially-increased pesticide use, increased human activity, and eventually the need for remediation efforts to resume. Created with BioRender by Carina Coalman. Remediation stage challenges visual adapted from Baumer et al. 2022.
Conclusion and Future Directions
The Hanford site was constructed by the military in aims of progressing the “atomic bomb” plans for WWII. As the operation expanded, it became the forefront of plutonium production for the United States (Gerber 1992). Hanford has left nothing but a harmful scar to the natural landscape of the affected region of eastern Washington, and to the lives of the people that the site has encountered. Little to none of the pollution has been successfully remediated, which deems the area a continuous threat to human and animal health (Sample et al. 2015).
Millions of liters of radioactive waste have been stored underneath the Hanford site for decades. Plutonium and aluminum (III) continue to be the most prevalent metals in this kind of waste, and are found in the soil as well (Baumer et al. 2022; Page et al. 2020). Various sizes of aluminum (III)-containing gibbsite particles are commonly found in the soil surrounding this site, and it has also been found in both acidic and alkaline soils. It was concluded that large gibbsite particles, or agglomerates, have low mobility in the environment and that it is geologically stable, meaning it is more difficult to remove from both storage tanks and from soil (Page et al 2020).
Without remediation, the legacy contamination from Hanford is expected to continue negatively impacting local tribes for many years to come. Their groundwater is contaminated, as are the native Chinook salmon that spawn in the Columbia River, affecting this major food source for the tribes (Clarke 1999). Buried beneath the land on which local tribes are allowed to hunt are containers of radioactive waste that leak pollutants into the environment year after year. Although laws are now in place to ensure that tribal governments have input in any decision-making, there is still much that needs to be done to alleviate this environmental injustice.
Efforts promoting remediation will need to account for large gibbsite mineral chunks that persist after current standard jet slurry methods, the factors that keep plutonium in the aqueous phase in soils, and post-remediation risks—such as the takeover of invasive species and pesticides that would be used against them. For instance, post-remediation events could be prevented earlier on in the remediation process through the development and action of management plans, devised by a diverse group of scientists, economists, managers, and members of the general public, that serve to protect both ecological resources and human health (Burger et al. 2020). For instance, such management plans may account for containing and minimizing the presence of invasive species without the use of any pesticides, and reducing any human or remediation activities that compact soil (Burger et al. 2020). Thus, remediation efforts should be holistic in that they account for the cleanup of persistent contaminants and plan for ways to minimize or prevent anticipated risks to the ecosystem and to humans once remediation is completed, so that further remediation efforts would not need to be relied on and so that Indigenous people and farmers nearby are not disproportionately affected by any further health effects through recurrent site contamination.
Works Cited
Baumer T, Hellebrandt S, Maulden E, Pearce CI, Emerson HP, Zavarin M, Kersting AB. 2022. Pu distribution among mixed waste components at the Hanford legacy site, USA and implications to long-term migration. Appl Geochemistry. 141:105304. doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2022.105304
Britannica. Hanford site: History, cleanup, & facts. [accessed 2022 Oct 31]. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hanford-Engineer-Works.
Burger J, Gochfeld M, Kosson DS, Brown KG, Salisbury JA, Jeitner C. 2020. Risk to ecological resources following remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration: A case study from the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site. Environ Res. 186:109536. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2020.109536.
Clarke KV. 1999. Environmental justice and Native Americans at the Department of Energy Hanford site. Fordham Environmental Law Journal. 10(3):319–329.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Radiation Studies: Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project (HEDR). 2019 Feb 11. [accessed 2022 Oct 30]. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/brochure/profile_hanford.htm.
Delistraty D, Van Verst S, Rochette E. 2010. Radiological risk from consuming fish and wildlife to Native Americans on the Hanford Site (USA). Environmental Research. 110(2):169–177. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2009.10.013.
EPA. 2000. Trichloroethylene fact sheet. [accessed 2022 Oct 31]. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/trichloroethylene.pdf
EPA. 2006. EPA facts about uranium. [accessed 2022 Oct 31]. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/175267.pdf
US Department of Energy. (2022 Apr 21). Calendar year 2020 annual summary report for pump and treat operations in the Handford central plateau operable units. [accessed 2022 Oct 31].
Gerber, M. S. (1992, September 1). Legend and legacy: Fifty years of defense production at the Hanford Site. Legend and legacy: Fifty years of defense production at the Hanford Site (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV. Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/10144167
Gosling FG (Francis G. 2010. The Manhattan Project: making the atomic bomb. 2010 edition. Washington, D.C: Office of History and Heritage Resources, Executive Secretariat, Office of Management, Department of Energy.
Grogan H, Rood A, Aanenson J, Liebow E. 2002. A risk-based screening analysis for radionuclides released to the Columbia River from past activities at the U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons site in Hanford, Washington. (3):205.
Jensen RA. 1996. Outreach by the Hanford Tribal Service Program to Indian communities around the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Cancer. 78(S7):1607–1611. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19961001)78:7+<1607::AID-CNCR16>3.0.CO;2-9.
Melosi MV. 1994. “On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site” by Michele Stenehjem Gerber (Book Review). The Public Historian. 16(2):93–.
Page JS, Reynolds JG, Cooke GA, Wells BE. 2020. Large cemented gibbsite agglomerates in alkaline nuclear waste at the Hanford site and the impacts to remediation. J Hazar Mater. 384:121318. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121318
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013 Feb 22. Summary of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. [accessed 2022 Nov 13]. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-nuclear-waste-policy-act.
Washington Against Nuclear Weapons Coalition. Impacted communities. [Date unknown]. [accessed 2022 Nov 13]. https://www.wanwcoalition.org/impacted-communities.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Ecology tracking Hanford waste tank leak. 2021. [accessed 2022 Oct 31]. https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Who-we-are/News/2021/Ecology-tracking-Hanford-waste-tank-leak.
Provide Feedback