Hanford cleanup is guided by visions of what the site will look like when cleanup is “complete,” who is imagined to use the land, and what measures are necessary to protect future humans from the contamination that is left behind. The end state determines how much contamination and waste must be removed to protect future users of the land, and what kinds of protections are needed, like fences, government presence, and soil caps or barriers covering waste sites.
In this blog post, we wanted to provide a one stop shop for anyone wanting to dig into this topic further, by looking at past publications on the topic of Hanford end states. Big thanks to the Oregon Hanford Cleanup Board for tackling this topic at its May 2023 meeting and Washington State Department of Ecology’s John Price for providing a great comprehensive list of documents.
(The documents below are listed in chronological order.)
Tribal Nation Treaties with the US Government, 1855
Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Nez Perce Tribe signed treaties with the United States that reserve their rights to hunt, fish, and gather in “all usual and accustomed places,” which included the area near the Columbia River that would later be called the Hanford Site. The United States has failed to honor many treaties over time and many bands and tribes did not enter into treaties.
The Future for Hanford: Uses and Cleanup, Hanford Future Site Uses Working Group, 1992
The Future Site Uses Working Group was a precursor to the Hanford Advisory Board and consisted of 49 stakeholders including representatives from the Tri-Party Agencies, tribal nations, the State of Oregon, local government interests, business interests, labor, environmental and public interest groups, local universities, and agricultural interests.
The Working Group was charged with three related tasks:
To examine Hanford and identify a range of potential future uses for the site;
To select appropriate cleanup scenarios necessary to make these future uses possible in light of potential exposure to contamination, if any, after cleanup; and
To probe for convergences among the Group's cleanup scenarios for any priorities or criteria which could prove useful in focusing or conducting the cleanup of Hanford.
The group considered options for ways different parts of the Hanford site could be used in the future and how cleanup informs how the site will be used in the future. The Future for Hanford: Uses and Cleanup (1992) report outlines different cleanup scenarios that are necessary in order for specific future uses of the site to occur. The report also provides recommendations on cleanup priorities and ways to ensure an effective cleanup.
Hanford Land Transfer, Washington State Department of Ecology, 1993
In March 1993, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) prepared the Hanford Land Transfer report. Ecology anticipated that in the future, the U.S. Department of Energy may transfer control over large areas of the Hanford site to other entities such as federal agencies, state and local governments, tribes, or private parties. This transfer of land ownership would pose significant long-term policy issues for the State of Washington.
The Hanford Land Transfer report was written to help frame these issues for the Governor and Legislature. It provides a review of potential future land uses by area, discusses the legal and procedural framework for land transfers, and describes the environmental cleanup requirements and issues of liability. There is also discussion of other legal constraints that may affect future Hanford landowners including water rights, tribal nation treaty rights, pre-existing claims, and cultural and historic preservation. The report considers key policy issues, but it does not make specific policy recommendations to state leaders.
Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, 1999
(Additional resources: Record of Decision Comprehensive Land-Use Plan, 1999, Supplemental Analysis of the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, 2015, U.S. Department of Energy)
In 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy published the Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (CLUP). The CLUP’s purpose is to facilitate decision-making about the Hanford site’s uses and facilities over at least the next 50 years.
The CLUP considers six alternatives, including a no-action alternative, a tribal, federal, and state or local agency’s preferred alternative. The land-use map included in the CLUP separates the Hanford Site into five geographic areas (the Wahluke Slope, the Columbia River Corridor, the Central Plateau, the Fitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve, and all other areas of the site) and outlines nine land-use designations that define the permissible uses for each area. The CLUP includes planning policies and implementing procedures that govern the review and approval of future land uses. Of the documents listed in this post, the CLUP is a formal decision making tool. For example, the CLUP is referenced in Proposed Plans and Records of Decision.
Hanford Advisory Board Exposure Scenarios Task Force, 2001-2002
In September 2001, the Tri-Party Agencies presented a jointly signed letter to the Hanford Advisory Board (HAB or Board) outlining nine priority areas for the Board to focus on. Three areas, including the Central Plateau End States, Ecological and Baseline Risk Requirements, and Long Term Stewardship were not already a part of Board committee work plans and required an increased focus.
The Hanford Advisory Board Exposure Scenarios Task Force was formed and chartered to develop a compilation of stakeholder values about possible exposure scenario development and risk assessment. The Exposure Scenarios Task Force met over the course of seven months to discuss the broad question of how clean is clean enough at Hanford. The end result was the Report of the Exposure Scenarios Task Force published in December 2002. The report contains a summary of the discussions held by the Task Force and two pieces of consensus advice on the topics of exposure scenarios, cleanup levels, and risk. These two pieces of advice are discussed below.
In 2002, the Board published HAB Advice #132 titled, Exposure Scenarios Task Force on 200 Area. The advice recommended that the “Core Zone” area be reduced to the smallest footprint possible, that the agencies analyze a range of potential human health and ecological risks, including the reasonable maximum exposure expected over time to a worker/day user, Native American users, and to intruders. The Board also recommended that a coalition of various stakeholder groups be formed to administer the long-term stewardship responsibilities for Hanford.
The Tri-Party Agencies responded to HAB Advice #132 by highlighting that an industrial land use scenario was chosen for the “Core Zone” area of the Central Plateau. The industrial land use scenario would be used to inform and set cleanup levels for the Central Plateau.
Later in 2002, the Board published HAB Advice #135 titled, Exposure Scenarios Task Force on River Corridor. The advice recommended using rural residential, recreational, and tribal use scenarios for the River Corridor area of the Hanford site.
The Tri-Party Agencies responded to HAB Advice #135 by confirming that tribal use, recreational, and rural residential scenarios would be evaluated for the 100 B/C Pilot project which would then inform the assessment of risk at other River Corridor locations.
USDOE Policy 455.1 – Use of Risk-Based End States, U.S. Department of Energy, 2003
In 2003, the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) issued Policy 455.1 Use of Risk-Based End States policy. As a policy, it “addressed conducting cleanup that is aimed at, and achieves, clearly defined, risk-based end states.” The policy applied to USDOE cleanup nationwide and stated that cleanup should reflect the planned future use of the property. The Hanford Advisory Board wrote Advice #151 responding to and asking for a public process for USDOE’s Use of Risk-Based End States policy. In 2003, regional workshops were held to gather public input on the policy. USDOE’s Use of Risk-Based End States policy was canceled in 2011 by USDOE Notice 251.106
Exposure Scenario for CTUIR Traditional Subsistence Lifeways, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 2004
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) developed the Exposure Scenario for CTUIR Traditional Subsistence Lifeways to be part of the Hanford cleanup process in which USDOE looks at harm/impact through various scenarios of future land use in the decision making process for how much to clean up and how much to leave behind.
Guidance in Support of the Nez Perce Tribe Hanford End-State Vision Resolution, Nez Perce Tribe, original 2005, most recent updated version 2021, Nez Perce Perspective at Hanford, date unknown
The Guidance in Support of the Nez Perce Tribe Hanford End-State Vision Resolution outlines the Nez Perce Tribe’s short term, mid term, and long term recommendations to state and federal agencies in regards to Hanford cleanup activities, future land use, and Hanford-affected lands and resources.
Hanford End States Vision: Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, U.S. Department of Energy, 2005
The Hanford End States Vision document is so large, we had to break it up into three different sections for online viewing (Section 1, Section 2, Section 3). In 2005, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) published the Hanford End States Vision in response to the requirements in USDOE Policy 455.1. USDOE Policy 455.1 tasked USDOE with presenting a site-specific end state cleanup vision for the Hanford Site. The Hanford End States Vision links decision-making to a bigger picture perspective that considers future land use and risk in making cleanup decisions. However, it is not a cleanup decision document.
The end state vision alternatives serve to identify what tasks need to be implemented in order to achieve USDOE’s chosen end state vision. The tasks will help quantify impact, address barriers, focus ongoing planning efforts, and facilitate regulatory and community discussions on anticipated future land uses. The Hanford End States Vision also includes feedback from workshops that gathered input from the regulatory agencies, tribal nations, stakeholders, and the public on potential future uses of the Hanford Site and key cleanup strategies. The end state described in the Hanford End States Vision is based on the land-use plan outlined in the Comprehensive Land-Use Plan. A 2003 USDOE fact sheet references the Hanford End States Vision.
Yakama Nation Exposure Scenario for Hanford Site Risk Assessment, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, 2007
Yakama Nation developed the Yakama Nation Exposure Scenario for Hanford Site Risk Assessment to address the potential risks to members of the Yakama Nation who in the future may use resources and engage in traditional practices at the Hanford Site and may be exposed to Hanford contaminants left onsite.
Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan, U.S. Department of Energy, 2010
In 2010, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) published a Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan for how to manage site obligations after cleanup activities are “completed”. Areas where active cleanup activities are completed will transition into the Hanford Long-term Stewardship Program. The Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan informs how USDOE manages these areas after they are cleaned up. The management process follows the post-cleanup requirements that are outlined in cleanup decision documents, such as the Comprehensive Land-Use Plan.
Normally, after a USDOE site is remediated, management responsibilities transition to USDOE’s Office of Legacy Management. However, since the Hanford Site is so large, areas of the site will transition first to management and oversight by the Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program. The Office of Legacy Management will not take over land management responsibility of the Hanford Site until cleanup of the entire site is completed.
The Hanford Long-Term Stewardship Program Plan identifies the program’s responsibilities and activities, describes the relationship between cleanup activities and the long-term stewardship program, defines how land management responsibility is transferred from cleanup projects to the Hanford Long-term Stewardship Program, proposes transition timeframes and schedules, and incorporates lessons learned.
River Corridor Baseline Risk Assessment, Volume 1 and Volume 2, U.S. Department of Energy, 2011 and 2012
The River Corridor Baseline Risk Assessment (RCBRA) examines ecological risk in Volume 1 and human health risk in Volume 2. HAB Advice #246 provides a thorough explanation of this document:
The RCBRA contains risk information that informs all future River Corridor documents. It identifies the contaminants of concern and the contaminant pathways that potentially cause risk to human health and the environment at remediated sites. Cleanup verification sample data from 156 River Corridor remediated sites and monitoring well data were used to calculate exposure estimates for radiation and chemical risk for each exposure scenario identified in RCBRA. Much of the risk was associated with only twelve sites. Risk was caused by unacceptable levels of arsenic, uranium, cobalt-60, cesium-137, europium-152, strontium-90, chromium, mercury, and cadmium.
Closure for the Seventh Generation, State and Tribal Government Working Group’s Long-Term Stewardship Committee, 2017
The State and Tribal Government Working Group (STGWG) is composed of representatives from affected states and tribes that engage directly with USDOE on issues related to cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex sites. STGWG provides perspectives on issues such as long-term stewardship, tribal issues, transportation planning, nuclear waste and materials disposition, and deactivation and decommissioning activities.
The STGWG Long-Term Stewardship Committee originally published Closure for the Seventh Generation in 1999. The report was updated in 2017 to reflect progress made and lessons learned. The 2017 report addresses long-term risks and stewardship of all the nuclear weapons research and production facilities, including the Hanford Site. The report includes findings and conclusions from fifteen U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) site surveys, including successes and shortcomings in selected cleanup remedies. One of the Committee’s recommendations is, “Consider tribal treaty rights and fulfill DOE trust responsibility and related access rights for tribes prior to transfer of land ownership or management authority. Assure, through either legislation or policy, that such rights and resources are restored or maintained with changes in land status.”
The findings and conclusions provide a framework for continued discussions and cooperative action on long-term stewardship to protect human health and the environment for future generations.
Competing Visions for the Future of Hanford, Columbia Riverkeeper, 2018
Columbia Riverkeeper’s mission is to protect and restore the water quality of the Columbia River and all life connected to it, from the headwaters to the Pacific Ocean. In 2018, Columbia Riverkeeper published the report, Competing Visions for the Future of Hanford. The report highlights how Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), State of Oregon, and Washington State have competing perspectives of Hanford’s future and how these perspectives will determine Hanford’s legacy.
USDOE’s assumptions about how people will use Hanford in the future, impact the protective and thorough nature of cleanup decisions and activities today. The report asserts that USDOE cleanup decisions do not account for tribal nations’ future use of Hanford and fail to honor tribal treaty rights. The report also emphasizes Washington’s and Oregon’s disagreement with USDOE’s assumptions about how the general public will use Hanford in the future. In general, the report shows how USDOE’s cleanup plans are not protective of future generations.
Central Plateau Inner Area Cleanup Principles and Parameters, U.S. Department of Energy, 2020
The Central Plateau Inner Area Cleanup Principles and Parameters lays out a shared vision of what the Hanford Site will look like when cleanup is finished. Check out our blog post for a deeper dive into this overarching guidance document.
This material is funded through a Public Participation Grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The content was reviewed for grant consistency, but is not necessarily endorsed by the agency.