To mobilize the community affected by the radioactive pollution from Hanford, Washington will require the leadership of Native American activists, the cooperation of environmental groups in the area, and the collective goal of pressuring for legislative change.
The dangers of radioactive pollution are that it practically destroys the natural environment (local wildlife, groundwater, ecosystems, etc.) and leads to life-threatening health issues. Radioactive pollution is the presence or deposition of radioactive materials in the atmosphere or environment (Rinkesh). This destruction is because of the emissions of hazardous ionizing radiation (radioactive decay) (Rinkesh). The Hanford site is responsible for the radioactive pollution in Washington (Brown). This nuclear plant was built for the production of plutonium for the atomic bomb of the Manhattan Project in 1943 (Brown). “The original containers, single-shell tanks built in the 1940s and 1950s, had already leaked at least 1 million gallons of liquid waste into the ground” (Brown). Hanford stopped production in 1987 after the Cold War (Brown), but this was not the end of its impact on the area. “Hanford officials built double-shell tanks in the 1970s and 1980s and began transferring the radioactive waste into the newer vessels. But in October 2012, the energy department announced one of the double-shell tanks was leaking into the space between the two shells” (Brown). Luckily there has been leakage reported into the environment (Brown), but the community is certainly at risk. If the environment were to be polluted then the groundwater would be toxic and dangerous for any living creature to drink/use (Rinkesh). This would leave all animal and plant life likely contaminated leading to diseases, genetic mutations, and cell destruction (Rinkesh). The soil would become infertile and biomagnification would spread the contamination (Rinkesh). If any human were to be poisoned with plutonium then they are at high risk for cancer and diseases affecting the lungs, bronchia, liver and bone marrow (Environmental Pollution Centers). These impacts are critically detrimental and would most likely result in evacuation for the affected communities if not mitigated properly.
As previously mentioned, the Hanford officials have stated that there is a cleanup process, but if not taken seriously the dangers of plutonium poisoning will impact the nearby tribes (Yakama, Nez Perce, and Umatilla) as well as the nearest city Richland. Yakama, Nez Perce, and Umatilla are all tribes that reside near the Columbia River. This river is where the 1 million gallons of radioactive waste was dumped and it also is where future contaminations are likely to happen. The tribes are key stakeholders in the status of the cleanup. As previously discussed, one of the tanks has leaked, but not into the environment, and six of the other containers potentially have the same flaw (Brown). Oregon Senator Ron Wyden accused Hanford officials of hiding information, but Hanford claims that these accusations are not valid (Brown). Hanford officials stated in 2014 that they had a two year plan to empty those tanks, but then two dozen workers fell ill due to chemical vapors (Brown). They had scheduled for a treatment operation in 2019, but construction got slowed and additional testing needed to be done (Brown). Essentially nothing has been done despite the danger of these tanks. The leakage from more tanks will likely impact Richland, WA. This city holds nearly 60,000 people (World Population Review) which means if that city’s groundwater were to be contaminated then there is high risk of evacuation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is conducting an assessment phase to determine the cultural, economical, and ecological damages that have been done to determine the type and amount of restoration necessary (NOAA). This statement was released March 21, 2019 and considering recent events there is no certainty of how long this assessment will take. These communities need to come together to demand action to prevent radioactive pollution.
To mobilize the communities to enact change they will need to listen to Native American activists, cooperate with local environmental groups to control the narrative, and pressure for legislative change. Richland and surrounding suburban/rural citizens should listen to the tribes that have historically experienced the effects of radioactive pollution. The activist movement needs to follow Native Americans that are already leading the fight to protect their tribe and land because they are traditionally underrepresented but are generally the groups most in need. To engage these communities, they must have the resources to be able to take control of their narrative. This nuclear plant wants nothing more than to go by unnoticed. So, environmental groups, such as Columbia Land Trust (an environmentalist group centered around conserving the Columbia River), must work with the affected communities to give them the platform to speak about the injustices they are facing. A campaign with the goal of gaining national attention must be launched by Columbia Land Trust (with the financial support of other environmental groups in Oregon) and led by Native Americans. Finally, this campaign will be used for the purposes of pressuring for legislative change. Washington Governor Jay Inslee has threatened legal action in the past, but only with hopes of starting treatment in 2028 (Brown). This campaign must call for a state proposal for proper treatment which must start as soon as possible, no later than 2021. Along with this a ban on the construction of any nuclear power plants in the state. Finally, a petition for NOAA to complete their assessment and compensate the Hanford workers, nearby tribes, and affected communities.
This campaign run by Columbia Land Trust and led by Native American activists will engage their communities through non-violent public disturbance, multi-media coverages, and encouragement of various levels of activism. The non-violent protests should be led by the Native American activists and done at the office of Governor Jay Inslee to actively state their policy proposal. The environmentalist’s groups should do everything in their power to have media coverage at these protests. The main message sent out should be that this is an environmental and health concern; it demands immediate attention. A social media campaign should be launched with accounts dedicated to the movements to attract more viewers. All social media ads should have direct links to the online petitions and donations. The donations should be used to fund the cause (not just the environmental organizations as a whole) as well as whatever the tribes and affected communities need for compensation especially if the NOAA has not provided said resources. The online petition should be used to persuade NOAA to finish their assessment and compensate the communities. They should also be in support of the legislative change the protesters are arguing for. The funding for this campaign must be organized by Columbia Land Trust coming from donations, support of other environmental groups, and volunteers. The most important element of this campaign to mobilize the community is to allow Native Americans to take control of the narrative illuminating the fact that this is an environmental and health issue.
Policy Proposal
The policy that the impacted community in Washington should propose is to have Governor Jay Inslee issue a treatment plan for Hanford to follow in which they replace all radioactive waste tanks by 2021 and conduct a yearly inspection for leaks, as well as, a ban any future construction of any nuclear power plants.
While this policy may seem harsh, it will be more likely to pass in Washington than in other states due to pollution history. Targeting governor Inslee will be beneficial since he has shown concern for this issue in the past, but the support of the public is crucial for its passing. His plan, however, states that treatment should begin in 2028 (Brown) and since one of the tanks has already leaked, it may be too late by that time. The urgency of this issue being resolved by 2021 comes from the severity of the complications if anything were to be contaminated. Considering, again, the history of this issue, yearly inspections must be done if not already the industry standard. Finally, the ban of any future construction is to prevent the communities from ever having to face any additional radioactive pollution. Since the Hanford site still holds radioactive waste, there will always be a danger, so the state should prohibit new plants in acknowledgment of its history.
The stakeholders in this policy are the affected communities, the state of Washington, the Tri-Party Agreement used for Hanford’s cleanup (The Department of Energy, The Washington State Department of Ecology, and the EPA), and Hanford site officials. The funding for this policy will be allocated from the budget of the Department of Energy considering they will be the ones doing the yearly inspections. This policy will be put in place for the benefit of the affected communities and local environment.
References
Brown, Taylor Kate. “25 Years on at America’s Most Contaminated Nuclear Waste Site.” BBC
News, BBC, 11 June 2014, www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26658719.
NOAA. “Hanford Nuclear Site.” Hanford Nuclear Site | NOAA’s Damage Assessment
Remediation and Restoration Program, 2019, darrp.noaa.gov/hazardous-waste/hanford-nuclear-site.
“Plutonium-238 Poisoning.” Environmental Pollution Centers, 2017,
www.environmentalpollutioncenters.org/plutonium-238/.
Rinkesh, “Radioactive Pollution: Causes, Effects and Solutions.” Conserve Energy Future, 16
Oct. 2018, www.conserve-energy-future.com/radioactive-pollution-causes-effects-solutions.php.
World Population Review. “Richland, Washington Population 2020.” World Population Review,
2020, worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/richland-wa-population/.