30 July 2009

Mercury Wastes to Hanford?!

Mercury Factsheet

Posted by Heart of America Northwest at 5:01 PM

13 comments:

  1. RyanAugust 4, 2009 at 12:33 PM

    It seems ludicrous to ship mercury to Hanford when Hanford has no facility that can handle the mercury. There are other facilities around the country that are much better suited to accept the mercury and do not have the hazardous waste problems already facing Hanford.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MarkAugust 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM

    I thought I-297 was to stop sending more waste to Hanford until it was cleaned up?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Heart of America NorthwestAugust 4, 2009 at 4:11 PM

    That IS indeed what I-297 was all about, but it did not pass in federal court due to some minor technicalities.

    This past session our bill included the very principles of I-297, "Clean-Up First!". Although it was not adopted into law, there is an agreement that it will be included in principle into upcoming decisions.

    We continue to urge and encourage the governor to hold strong on this as well. Your pushing her is always important too!

    ReplyDelete
  4. David DelkAugust 6, 2009 at 10:50 PM

    This mercury should not be shipped to any site in the US or anyway in the world for storage. The problem with this proposal is that US DOE want to transport it and that they then want to store it for 40 years. It needs to be processed now into pellets for permanent disposal.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousAugust 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM

    This is ludicrous! With the known dangers of mercury, why is DOE proposing to, essentially, add it back to the environment? Why are they not at least processing it for permanent disposal, rather than opting to add it to an already failing, damaged disposal site at Hanford? Perhaps mercury contamination has already adversely affected their thinking processes?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jan CastleAugust 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM

    Please explain further about what ultimately needs to happen to the mercury. David mentioned processing into pellets. How would it be processed and where should it ultimately go?

    ReplyDelete
  7. SarahAugust 10, 2009 at 10:01 AM

    Adding onto Ryan's comment...if you check out www.mercurystorageeis.com, and click on "Library," you can read the other sites' responses to the inquiry about mercury storage capacity. Most of the other sites list existing buildings or facilities that could be used for mercury storage, but Hanford lacks such buildings, as stated in its own response to the inquiry. If you read the Hanford response, a USDOE official admits that adding more waste to Hanford will not receive local public support and also notes permitting difficulties and lack of existing capacity for mercury storage.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Heart of America NorthwestAugust 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM

    http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/GovRitter/GOVR/1248577517462

    In this article/letter from the Governor of Colorado he writes Energy Sec. Steven Chu opposing adding waste to Colorado. Let's get on board with this WA State and do the same!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Heart of America NorthwestAugust 11, 2009 at 3:18 PM

    Jan,

    In reference to your earlier question – mercury lasts forever, so it means storing it forever too. Hopefully USDOE’s presentation at the public meeting in PDX on Thursday will shed some light on what they intend to do with all the waste: how they would store it and where they would build these facilities.

    Currently, USDOE Hanford does not have facilities for mercury wastes – they would have to build the facilities. This is also assuming they have the permitted facilities to carry this out (which our research indicates they do not).

    There are 7 sites USDOE is currently choosing from to store waste and they would put 8,300-11,000 tons of mercury waste at a site until they did anything else with it (no plan for what to do with it).

    There is some exciting news!!!...TODAY the Tri-Party Agencies reach an agreement on the Hanford clean-up schedules. In the agreement it says they will not add any more waste until the Waste Treatment Facility is ready (VICTORY!!!). We wish the plan was more enforceable, but this is a step in the right direction - so we are hoping that will give Hanford some more leverage to be NOT receive mercury wastes either.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousAugust 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM

    To: Heart of America.

    You are incorrect about there being a DOE promise not to bring anymore waste to Hanford. What I read in the Oregonian is that Gregoir and Kulongoski are "insisting" [not a legally inforceable agreement] that the DOE "continue its commitment to not bring more RADIOACTIVE WASTE onto the site, at least until the treatment plant is ready." Mercury is not radioactive. It is just the most toxic non-radioactive heavy metal on the planet.

    Every year dentists in America plant another 34 tons of mercury into the teeth of Americans. There is currently 1000 tons of mercury stored in the teeth of Americans. ALL of that will eventually end up in the environment (urine, feces, cremation, buried bodies, incinerators, solid waste dumps,and wastetreatment sludge spread on croplands)

    52% of dentists are now mercury-free, but we are a long way from "phasing it out." The FDA just classified mercury amalgam dental fillings as safe without any warnings even to pregnant women or parents of children six and under.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousAugust 12, 2009 at 7:11 PM

    Mercuty is scary stuff. Mercury dumped, unprocessed, in the same State where I live is even scarier, in all kinds of ways. Please don't do this. There are options. Please wait until dumpsites are prepared to handle these powerful toxins. Please don't dump more scary stuff into a world that I share with an awful lot of beings (such as yourself). Please wait. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. jane civilettiAugust 12, 2009 at 10:22 PM

    And now mercury. The place isn't toxic enough. DOE has neither respect for the area nor any shame. It is not a pit to the center of the earth; it is a place; and next to THE major river in the Northwest

    ReplyDelete
  13. genny k.August 14, 2009 at 5:37 PM

    No mercury storage at Hanford! Good grief, let's get the radioactivity stored "safely" first.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)