Draft Hanford Sitewide Permit renewal revision 9A

Submitted By

38 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/26/26 @ 11:55 AM

The 200 Area (West) sodium storage facilities should be permitted as dangerous waste management units, and should have an enforceable closure schedule. USDOE is practicing "speculative accumulation" of the sodium stored there because it's not feasib...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ann Dorsey

10/25/26 @ 7:56 PM

I urge you to bar USDOE from trucking millions of gallons of liquid radioactive hazardous wastes from Hanford's High Level Nuclear Waste tanks through Oregon or Spokane en route to be treated and disposed in Texas or Utah unless there is an EIS t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lunell Haught

10/15/26 @ 10:48 AM

My concern is that much has changed in the 15 years since the last EIS was done, and the new permit does not recognize or address any changes. Specifically, the new EIS should include analysis and comment on
Preventing USDOE from trucking liquid radi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: anonymous3 Anonymous3

10/13/26 @ 7:25 AM

On June 29th 2026 a 120 day public comment period opened. Don't try to rewrite history. Extension requests were rudely ignored and when extensions were finally granted, it was too late for an appropriate comment period. Perhaps if Ecology planned ou...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Hanford Challenge (Miya Burke)

10/07/26 @ 5:00 PM

OK I for whatever reason I'm unable to start video but at least you can hear me. So thank you for the opportunity to comment my name is Miya Burke and I am program manager of Hanford Challenge. I want to thank Ecology
for your strong commitment to pu...↓blic involvement through public meetings, regional hearings, and weekly lunch and learn sessions. This level of transparency stands in stark contrast to the Department of Energy 's increasingly limited and inconsistent public involvement practices. DOE is moving fast and loose by accelerating cleanup decisions. shortening comment windows, and sidelining public oversight at the exact moment when risks are rising.
Hanford Challenge is still in the process of working through the Rev 9A RCRA permit and creating materials to help the public navigate this complicated comment period. First, we ask that Ecology please extend the Rev 9A comment period by 45 days and host an additional virtual public hearing closer to the end of the extended comment period. The current flood of comment periods related to Hanford cleanup is making it difficult to give each one the attention it deserves. By spacing out the deadline for the Rev 9A comment period by 45 days, Hanford Challenge and other groups would have more time to engage the public in a meaningful way without competing for attention amid the other important comment periods that are currently underway. Ecology spent 14 years producing this 30,000 page permit please extend this public comment period to provide adequate time for meaningful review. Second, please remove incorporated by reference requirements, the permit must contain clear enforceable conditions. Ambiguous or incorporated by reference requirements weaken accountability. Please update the permit to eliminate eliminate incorporated by reference rules and regulations and instead include this information directly in the permit. The RCRA permit should contain all of the information necessary for the Hanford workforce to demonstrate compliance with the permit. They should not be required to track down documents that are incorporated by reference. Third Ecology must keep holding DOE accountable. DOE is pushing cleanup decisions that prioritize speed and cost over long term protection. Ecology must ensure the permit contains conditions that protect water quality through rigorous groundwater monitoring and sampling protocols,
protect worker health and safety through training requirements and safety protocols especially for protections from toxic chemical vapors, and catch problems early through rigorous monitoring protocols, leak detection
requirements, and response protocol. Fourth, Ecology should prohibit tank farm closure until additional waste removal technologies are developed and deployed.

No attachments

Comment From: Heart of America Northwest (Gerry Pollet)

10/07/26 @ 5:00 PM

Thank you. I'm going to move something so I can read it and see if the clock so please hold on. Uh. This is Gerry Pollet on behalf of the thousands of members of Heart of America Northwest spread across Washington and Oregon. And after waiting 14 yea...↓rs for this permit to be reissued we are extremely disappointed that it does not have accompanying it any environmental impact statement supplement and relies on long outdated analysis and fails to take into account new circumstances such as leaking tanks. When the 2012 environmental impact statement was issued it did not include analysis of the impacts of leaking tanks. What a mistake. Impact statements supplemental EIS 's are intended to not only inform the public so that we can look at alternatives and comment on them but they're vitally necessary to inform the decision makers in order to understand the impacts of the proposals in this permit and the alternatives to them. Let's turn to one such major topic that is leaking high level nuclear waste tanks. State and federal hazardous waste laws require leaking dangerous waste tanks to have all leakage liquids emptied as soon as practicable. This permit should have but fails to have a leak response plan that requires leaking high level nuclear waste tanks to be emptied within one year or sooner as soon as practicable after being identified as potentially leaking without spending months or years arguing about whether or not there is a leak as has happened in the past. There are 3 tanks leaking today. There is no leeway in the permit in the federal and state hazardous waste laws. For the condition that must be applied which is to remove as much waste as soon as practicable and remove waste to prevent further release into the environment. That means removal of waste, not looking at alternatives and arguing about them, not considering cost. Congress and the state legislature have said you must remove waste, It's not a matter of weighing costs but you have language in here that
allows Energy to not remove waste from tanks that are leaking based on cost estimates and weighing other values. That is not allowed. You must have a condition that says you will remove waste from the tanks as soon as practicable or within a year.

No attachments

Comment From: Laura Feldman

10/07/26 @ 5:00 PM

Yes, my name is Laura Feldman and I live in Portland, Oregon. I served on the Oregon Hanford Cleanup Board for 7 years ending in 2024. I have some knowledge of how fragile and complex the cleanup containment of Hanford
waste is and by extension the t...↓hreat it poses for all communities in this region and beyond. I want to thank Ecology for alerting us to these recent and sudden hearings on the Rev 9 and dual path permits. I support the state’s
exercise of RCRA hazardous waste law authority at the nuclear at the Hanford Site and the tremendous effort it takes to ensure safe storage cleanup and disposal of all the waste at Hanford. Hanford focus should be on organizing optimizing the low activity waste facility, not grout. I find the federal deregulation of nuclear safety and environmental standards along with the reduction of Hanford's federal workforce to be very concerning. Especially at a time when the challenge is to the region from the climate crisis are increasing exponentially putting Hanford at risk for more wildfires, growing limitations to access of an adequate water supply from the Columbia River for clean up operations. And and much more I urge Ecology to reject Energy’s permit modification request which would support Energy’s attempts to grout a new waste stream at Hanford and transport this dangerous cargo through Washington. I'm losing my place. Um, through Washington state through Oregon and Washington state to, you know Utah, Texas, places where those people don't want it and I know this from attending different activists meetings. I agree with the Ecology’s concerns that attempt to reroute pretreated liquid tank waste for ship I sorry I agree with Ecology’s concerns that attempts to reroute pretreated liquid tank waste for shipping and grouting off site will only divert funding and attention away from other crucial work at Hanford which includes the 324 building. The WESF site waste encapsulation and storage facility where 1936 radioactive cesium-137
and strontium strontium-90 capsules still float in some kind of toxic pool. The list goes on. The US Department of Energy needs oversight when it comes to this cleanup across and it is clear that Energy is not making decisions that are protective of human health and the environment. For all our sakes Washington state must not be bullied by Energy when it comes to decision making at Hanford, Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Lisa Reiner

10/07/26 @ 5:00 PM

Thank you very much. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to weigh on the in on this huge issue. This has been going on for decades. People of the state of Washington especially those in the Richland Washington area have relied on the trust betwee...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Heart of America Northwest (Gerry Pollet)

10/07/26 @ 5:00 PM

OK. Thank you. So again Gerry Pollet for Heart of America Northwest continuing. The department needs to ensure that there is a supplemental environmental impact statement that includes numerous areas that have never
been considered in terms of seriou...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Michael Freeman

10/07/26 @ 5:00 PM

Mister Pollet’s, Mister Pollet’s comments raised an issue with that central storage facility. It's requirements are clearly laid out to include concentration of the contaminant. A careful reading of the building 324 removal plan called for the gross ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/06/26 @ 2:06 PM

There is concern that the Draft Rev. 9A Permit does not clearly conform to the requirements of Chapter 173-303 WAC. In multiple instances, the draft appears to incorporate extensive Part B application material, engineering-level detail, generator inf...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Justin Case

10/05/26 @ 7:55 PM

I see a few comments about outdated material; this doesn't inspire confidence that what is provided meets regulatory requirements. I just don't think 120 days is sufficient for an individual to review this draft permit and compare all parts of it to ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Johnny C. Lately

10/05/26 @ 7:14 PM

Regarding OUG 10 (Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant), why does table III.10.F.A in Revision 8C contain more information than table III.10.F.A in Revision 9A? It seems as though Ecology is putting out outdated material for public comment. It make...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Earl Teioume IX

10/05/26 @ 6:56 PM

Please explain why this site is subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when it is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) making it subject to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCL...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Leslie Cohen

9/30/26 @ 4:45 PM

Do you need my name again or hi my name is Leslie Cohen and I reside in Richland Washington. Good evening, I have a concern about whether the public has been given a complete and reliable Rev 9A package to review. The
draft contains outdated material...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Tom Sicilia

9/29/26 @ 4:45 PM

Hello.

My name is Tom Sicilia and I was speaking not as a member of ODOE but as myself so just want to make that distinction.

I wanted to just say first of all that the document is really well well laid out and the the sort of the website format is...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Esther Kronenberg

9/23/26 @ 7:44 PM

I am opposed to using the outdated Tank Closure and Waste Management EIS to guide the work that desperately needs doing at the Hanford site. There are many changes that have been revealed since then that must be assessed.

Besides the failings of th...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Heart of America Northwest (Gerry Pollet)

9/23/26 @ 5:45 PM

And thank you for providing the water. For the record I am Gerry Pollet, executive director of Heart of America Northwest speaking on behalf of Heart of America Northwest and our members across the region tonight. Thank you for holding the meetings a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Heart of America Northwest (Gerry Pollet)

9/23/26 @ 5:45 PM

Thank you OK. Continuing for Gerry Pollet for Heart of America Northwest. On the Central Waste Complex thank you for answering questions this evening. We have a long record of correspondence with Ecology and EPA and USDOE demanding that there be an e...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Derek Dexheimer

9/23/26 @ 10:30 AM

No new environmental impact statement has been prepared for any of the 52 units and the many risks, delays and changes that have been revealed since the US Department of Energy's (USDOE's) 2012 Tank Closure and Waste Management EIS. Rather, Ecology a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Glass

9/22/26 @ 9:45 PM

Protect our water from leaking nuclear waste runoff.

No attachments

Comment From: Guinevere Godsdóttir

9/22/26 @ 9:13 PM

Hello,

I am a Seattle resident who is deeply concerned about the ecological disaster currently unfolding at the Hanford Nuclear Site. The United States has been aware of the inevitability, if nothing was done to prevent it, of Hanford becoming a maj...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Columbia Riverkeeper (Dan Serres)

9/22/26 @ 5:45 PM

Thank you my name is Dan Serres, and I am the advocacy director for Columbia Riverkeeper.
I just want to start by thanking the Department of Ecology for your work. Thank you for being here thank you for making the hall thank you for crossing the rive...↓r. Uh. Hanford cleanup impacts all of us and I see in Ecology 's work a tremendous level of dedication that is not always met by the current Federal administration. And that's really challenging. So I want to highlight just one place where I think you're doing something important which is holding the line when it comes to hexavalent chromium. And in this permit, you have the opportunity to specifically put in soil cleanup values and I don't know if it could be extended to the groundwater values that would result. And I just want to say that in the presentation you refer to it was table H 6 and it's an addendum to the 324 building closure
plan. Uh. First of all I was impressed that you went there and realized that Chromium is a problem in the 324 building because so much of the attention is around radiological issues. But I wanted to ask whether those are the updated part values and just make sure that the math has been done to that the 120,000 milligrams per kilogram is the right value for total chromium related to the bigger problem of hexavalent chromium. Is there a way in the permit to go through and search for all those places where you know there's hexavalent chromium in the tanks in the pipes and all these different structures and implant that requirement because it really does reshape what closure looks like for so many of these facilities if you know that you have to go in and get every last bit, not every last bit, but pretty close to it of hexavalent chromium because the oral slope factor for chromium has been adjusted and included and now everyone realizes it's even more carcinogenic than one thought. So thank you for your work on that front. That's the main comment I wanted to make tonight my time is up but I just want to say I care a lot about cleanup of Hanford. I'm a new father and I hope when time comes for little Josie to fish in the river that she gets to catch a fish that aren’t lined with chromium and all these other things and your work is making it happen thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Joyce Follingstad

9/22/26 @ 5:45 PM

Hello, I am Joyce, Dr. Joyce Follingstad both a nurse and a psychologist and I care deeply about the cleanup of Hanford because the site has been badly contaminated by its initial mission to produce plutonium and by the environmental destruction caus...↓ed by inadequate treatment and storage of waste with resulting harm to humans and the environment. I find the federal deregulation of nuclear safety and environmental standards coupled with the reduction of Hanford 's federal workforce to be very concerning. The US Department of Energy needs oversight in making decisions which must be more protective not less protective of human health and safety. Washington State must not be bullied by the Department of Energy and I urge Ecology to reject any permit modification request that would support new attempts to grout a new waste stream at Hanford. Attempting to reroute liquid tank waste will increase the risk of spills and leaks especially driven on public roadways. It concerns me deeply that DOE is foregoing the most protective form of liquid waste which is vitrification in favor of grout and I urge Ecology to reject these permit revisions. In addition, Ecology must reject these divisions because they're not accompanied by updated environmental impact statements. I thank Ecology for all the work you have been doing, and I'm old enough to have been dealing with Hanford for over 30 years. I urge Ecology to insist on the cleanup of the 324 building and the highly contaminated 300 to 296 waste site beneath the 324 building. A plan for the decommissioning and demolition of these sites must include a closure plan that prevents the spread of toxic and radioactive dust. I also encourage Ecology to move toward closure, decommissioning, and removal
of the basins within the WESF. This move must include the conditions that allow for a final safe and secure placement of the capsules being moved to the interim capsule storage outside of the WESF. Ecology must require DOE to use up-to-date information regarding the carcinogenic nature of hexavalent chromium which requires a very high level of cleanup of soil structures and groundwater for this toxic. (Oh one minute) this toxic material. Finally, I beg Ecology and DOE to not repurpose the FMEF or the FFTF for a production mission as they were only built to withstand a 2 on the Richter scale and they need to be demolished. Thank you for taking my comments.

No attachments

Comment From: Hanford Challenge (Nikolas Peterson)

9/22/26 @ 5:45 PM

Hi my name is Nikolas Peterson I'm the executive director of Hanford Challenge a nonprofit based in Seattle Washington with the mission of a safe and effective Hanford cleanup. Thank you for the opportunity to comment
and for Ecology's strong commitm...↓ent to public involvement through things like public meetings, regional hearings, and weekly lunch and learn sessions. This level of transparency and accessibility stands in sharp contrast to the limited public engagement we often see from the Department of Energy 's public involvement process. Ecology’s approach is what meaningful public participation looks like. First, please extend the Rev 9 a comment period by 45 days. The public is navigating multiple overlapping Hanford comment periods and Ecology spent 14 years producing this 30,000 page permit and the public needs adequate time to review it meaningfully. Second the permit must contain clear enforceable conditions. Ambiguous or incorporated by reference requirements weaken accountability the RCRA permit should include all compliance critical information directly so workers, regulators, and the public can understand and enforce what DOE must do. Third, please keep holding the Department of Energy accountable for a safe and effective cleanup that protects human and environmental health through the RCRA permit. Ensure that the RCRA permit contains conditions that protect water quality through rigorous groundwater monitoring and sampling protocols, protect worker health and safety through training requirements and safety protocols especially for protections from toxic chemical vapors, and catch problems early through rigorous monitoring protocols, leak detection requirements, and response protocols. Fourth Ecology should prohibit tank farm closure until additional waste removal technologies are developed and deployed. Grouting is irreversible. Any waste left in tanks or soil will remain hazardous for generations. Under the holistic settlement agreement the expert panel must first evaluate and recommend new retrieval technologies. Ecology should add permit conditions preventing closure of C farm or any future tank farms until these technologies are used to remove more waste. And in closing. Ecology’s decisions now will shape Hanford 's future for decades. The choices made in this permit will determine whether the cleanup is protective enforceable and resilient or whether risks are deferred to future
generations. Strong clear and enforceable permit conditions are essential to protecting workers, communities, the Columbia River, and the environment. Thank you for ensuring the public has a meaningful voice in this process and for continuing to model the kind of transparent accessible public involvement that Hanford needs. Your leadership is critical to ensuring the cleanup is guided by science, community protection, and long term stewardship not convenience or expedience. As a 4th generation Washingtonian I feel this responsibility deeply. My family has lived worked and raised children in this region for more than a century. We want future generations including my own children Theodore and Abigail to inherit a Columbia River and a Pacific Northwest that are healthier safer and more resilient than they are today. Hanford cleanup is one of the most consequential environmental responsibilities our state will ever face and we only have one chance to get it right. Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Heart of America (Gerry Pollet)

9/22/26 @ 5:45 PM

Yeah. Thank you. Gerry Pollet speaking for Heart of America Northwest. (Do I need to OK) Given the 3 minute limit I'm just going to say Nikolas from Hanford Challenge spoke for our appreciation as well for the educational and
outreach efforts but als...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Heart of America (Gerry Pollet)

9/22/26 @ 5:45 PM

Yes thank you kindly. For the record this is Gerry Pollet Heart of America Northwest extending comments thank you for the additional 3 minutes. As I said. Initially the tank closure waste management EIS never considered the
impacts of leaking high le...↓vel nuclear waste tanks there are 3 tanks leaking as I stand here today. The impacts of those have never been considered. State and federal hazardous waste laws require leaking dangerous waste tanks to have all leakage liquids emptied immediately or as soon as practicable. The law doesn't say that you get to have the polluter and Ecology discuss and in the words of the documents that I just looked at consider advantages and disadvantages of responding to a leak and removing those leakable liquids. The law is clear. Congress and the legislature in the state of Washington and the Department of Ecology itself has said a leak is a leak you must respond either immediately or as soon as practical and you don't get to allow the polluter to say well it's OK to have a leak in the 200 West area or it's OK to have a leak here. The harm to the ground through the soil the environment potential harm to human health, the groundwater, and the Columbia River are irreversible. And the law is clear you must respond to a leak as soon as practicable. And that if you don't require that then you need to have another EIS. There is no impact analysis adopted and shared with the public or the decision makers about what I just looked at in contingency plan J leak response plan. Furthermore I just want to say we'd like to see a proposed permanent condition that no grounded waste will be disposed of within Hanford and an EIS is needed for the 324 building alternatives. You adopted some CERCLA documents but those failed to consider the fact that DOE, USDOE, the failed to disclose to EPA and Ecology and the public that the fire suppression system at 324 has been inoperable for 4 years. And the risks of that reasonably foreseeable fire reasonably foreseeable fire are lethal and catastrophic. As the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board found USDOE underestimated the risks the dose from a fire by 833 times. There needs to be an analysis presented of the delay and alternatives for cleaning up thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Nez Perce Tribe (Anthony Smith)

9/18/26 @ 9:32 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: John Price

9/03/26 @ 9:53 AM

The III.Y.3 permit condition concerns Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) located with the US Ecology facility, which is located within the Hanford site. The III.Y.3 condition must be modified because the III.Y.3.a.ii condition commits Ecology to m...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/14/26 @ 2:37 PM

The 324 Building should be removed from the permit. The building is a mess. It is being remediated under a CERCLA action anyway, so what is the point for closing the building under the permit?

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/14/26 @ 2:32 PM

When the Waste Treatment Plant (OUG 10) was added to the Hanford Dangerous Waste Permit in 2002, Ecology stated that the interim compliance schedule was established to provide Ecology with design documentation needed for construction to proceed. Ecol...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cal Q. Later

8/13/26 @ 6:27 PM

Why did Ecology provide outdated files for the permit? Attachment 4, Hanford Emergency Management Plan (HEMP), provided for public comment is Revision 8 (see the upper right corner of the document); while attachment 4 of Rev. 8C of the Hanford Site P...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/12/26 @ 6:10 PM

It is difficult to give appropriate and accurate feedback when the provided draft permit information is outdated. One example is the Central Waste Complex (OUG 6) contains references to the Waste Receiving and Processing Facility (CUG 47), which is m...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/03/26 @ 12:01 PM

Ecology must establish a closure schedule for the 324 Building Closure Unit Group 31 (CUG-31). Applicable TPA milestone M-089-00 sets a Due Date to complete closure as "TBE in accordance with M-089-06" and there is no milestone M-089-06 in the curre...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/03/26 @ 11:58 AM

The closure plans for the 216-B-10 Pond and the 216-S-10 Pond include section "H.6 Schedule for Closure." Both closure plans defer closure to the CERCLA remedial action for the 200-OA-1 OU. There's no efficiency in deferring closure because the clo...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/03/26 @ 11:31 AM

Ecology must provide a closure schedule or update TPA milestone for closure of the 216-B-3 Main Pond system and/or 216-S-10 Pond and Ditch. The applicable TPA milestone M-037-22 Due Date is "Submit concurrently with M-015-38B" and M-015-38B was dele...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/03/26 @ 11:26 AM

Ecology must provide schedules for closure of the 216-A-29 Ditch, 216-A-36B Crib, 216-A-37-1 Crib, and/or 216-B-63 Trench. The applicable TPA milestone M-037-20 Due Date states "Submit concurrently with M-015-92B" and M-015-92B was deleted from TPA ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous

7/26/26 @ 8:14 PM

1. AY-102 is unfit for use and it is unrealistic that clean closure standards can be met. Ecology is going to have to Hanford specific rule making in order to address closure of the tank. There is no mention of that in the draft AY-102 permit or the ...↓

No attachments