Hanford Site

Last updated

Coordinates: 46°38′51″N119°35′55″W / 46.64750°N 119.59861°W / 46.64750; -119.59861


Nuclear reactors line the riverbank at the Hanford Site along the Columbia River in January 1960. The N Reactor is in the foreground, with the twin KE and KW Reactors in the immediate background. The historic B Reactor, the world's first plutonium production reactor, is visible in the distance. Hanford N Reactor adjusted.jpg
Nuclear reactors line the riverbank at the Hanford Site along the Columbia River in January 1960. The N Reactor is in the foreground, with the twin KE and KW Reactors in the immediate background. The historic B Reactor, the world's first plutonium production reactor, is visible in the distance.

The Hanford Site is a decommissioned nuclear production complex operated by the United States federal government on the Columbia River in Benton County in the U.S. state of Washington. The site has been known by many names, including Hanford Project, Hanford Works, Hanford Engineer Works and Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

Established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project in Hanford, south-central Washington, the site was home to the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in the world. [1] Plutonium manufactured at the site was used in the first nuclear bomb, tested at the Trinity site, and in Fat Man, the bomb detonated over Nagasaki, Japan.

During the Cold War, the project expanded to include nine nuclear reactors and five large plutonium processing complexes, which produced plutonium for most of the more than 60,000 weapons built for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. [2] [3] Nuclear technology developed rapidly during this period, and Hanford scientists produced major technological achievements. Many early safety procedures and waste disposal practices were inadequate, and government documents have confirmed that Hanford's operations released significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River.

In 1989, the State of Washington (Dept. of Ecology), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the US Department of Energy (DOE) entered into the Tri-Party Agreement which sets targets, or milestones, for cleanup. EPA and Ecology share regulatory oversight based on CERCLA (Superfund) and RCRA.

The weapons production reactors were decommissioned at the end of the Cold War, and decades of manufacturing left behind 53 million US gallons (200,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste [4] stored within 177 storage tanks, an additional 25 million cubic feet (710,000 m3) of solid radioactive waste, and areas of heavy Technetium-99 and uranium contaminated groundwater beneath three tank farms on the site as well as the potential for future groundwater contamination beneath currently contaminated soils. [4] In 2011, DOE, the federal agency charged with overseeing the site, "interim stabilized" 149 single-shell tanks by pumping nearly all of the liquid waste out into 28 newer double-shell tanks. Solids, known as salt cake and sludge, remained.

DOE later found water intruding into at least 14 single-shell tanks and that one of them had been leaking about 640 US gallons (2,400 l; 530 imp gal) per year into the ground since about 2010. In 2012, DOE discovered a leak also from a double-shell tank caused by construction flaws and corrosion in the bottom, and that 12 double-shell tanks have similar construction flaws. Since then, the DOE changed to monitoring single-shell tanks monthly and double-shell tanks every three years, and also changed monitoring methods. In March 2014, the DOE announced further delays in the construction of the Waste Treatment Plant, which will affect the schedule for removing waste from the tanks. [5] Intermittent discoveries of undocumented contamination have slowed the pace and raised the cost of cleanup. [6]

In 2007, the Hanford site represented 60% of high-level radioactive waste by volume managed by the US Department of Energy [7] and 7–9% of all nuclear waste in the United States (the DOE manages 15% of nuclear waste in the US, with the remaining 85% being commercial spent nuclear fuel). [8] Hanford is currently the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States [9] [10] and is the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup. [2] Besides the cleanup project, Hanford also hosts a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, and various centers for scientific research and development, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the Fast Flux Test Facility and the LIGO Hanford Observatory.

On November 10, 2015, it was designated as part of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park alongside other sites in Oak Ridge and Los Alamos. [11]


A map shows the main areas of the Hanford Site, as well as the buffer zone that was turned over to the Hanford Reach National Monument in 2000 Hanford Reach National Monument.png
A map shows the main areas of the Hanford Site, as well as the buffer zone that was turned over to the Hanford Reach National Monument in 2000

The Hanford Site occupies 586 square miles (1,518 km2)—roughly equivalent to half of the total area of Rhode Island—within Benton County, Washington. [2] This land is closed to the general public. It is a desert environment receiving under 10 inches of annual precipitation, covered mostly by shrub-steppe vegetation. The Columbia River flows along the site for approximately 50 miles (80 km), forming its northern and eastern boundary. [12] The original site was 670 square miles (1,740 km2) and included buffer areas across the river in Grant and Franklin counties. [13] Some of this land has been returned to private use and is now covered with orchards, vineyards, and irrigated fields. In 2000, large portions of the site were turned over to the Hanford Reach National Monument. [14] The site is divided by function into three main areas. The nuclear reactors were located along the river in an area designated as the 100 Area; the chemical separations complexes were located inland in the Central Plateau, designated as the 200 Area; and various support facilities were located in the southeast corner of the site, designated as the 300 Area. [15]

The site is bordered on the southeast by the Tri-Cities, a metropolitan area composed of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and smaller communities, and home to nearly 300,000 residents. Hanford is a primary economic base for these cities. [16]


Climate data for Hanford Site, Washington
Record high °F (°C)65
Mean maximum °F (°C)56.7
Average high °F (°C)38.3
Average low °F (°C)22.1
Mean minimum °F (°C)5.1
Record low °F (°C)−22
Average precipitation inches (mm)0.84
Average snowfall inches (cm)5.8
Source: [17]

Early history

The confluence of the Yakima, Snake, and Columbia rivers has been a meeting place for native peoples for centuries. The archaeological record of Native American habitation of this area stretches back over ten thousand years. Tribes and nations including the Yakama, Nez Perce, and Umatilla used the area for hunting, fishing, and gathering plant foods. [18] Hanford archaeologists have identified numerous Native American sites, including "pit house villages, open campsites, fish farming sites, hunting/kill sites, game drive complexes, quarries, and spirit quest sites", [13] and two archaeological sites were listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1976. [19] Native American use of the area continued into the 20th century, even as the tribes were relocated to reservations. The Wanapum people were never forced onto a reservation, and they lived along the Columbia River in the Priest Rapids Valley until 1943. [13] Settlers moved into the region in the 1860s, initially along the Columbia River south of Priest Rapids. They established farms and orchards supported by small-scale irrigation projects and railroad transportation, with small town centers at Hanford, White Bluffs, and Richland. [20]

Manhattan Project

During World War II, the S-1 Section of the federal Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) sponsored an intensive research project on plutonium. The research contract was awarded to scientists at the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory (Met Lab). At the time, plutonium was a rare liquid that had only recently been isolated in a University of California laboratory. The Met Lab researchers worked on producing chain-reacting "piles" of uranium to convert it to plutonium and finding ways to separate plutonium from uranium. The program was accelerated in 1942, as the United States government became concerned that scientists in Nazi Germany were developing a nuclear weapons program. [21] On March 10, 1945, the Hanford Plutonium Works had been temporarily shut down due to Japanese bomb carrying balloon attacks, which had been ongoing since November 3, 1944. The general public was not made aware of it, until August 31, 1945, when such information was released to the public, World War 2 ended two days later, on September 2, 1945. [22]

Site selection

Hanford High School, shown before residents were displaced by the creation of the Hanford Site Pic hanford highschool.jpg
Hanford High School, shown before residents were displaced by the creation of the Hanford Site
Hanford High after abandonment Hanford High School.jpg
Hanford High after abandonment

In September 1942, the Army Corps of Engineers placed the newly formed Manhattan Project under the command of Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, charging him with the construction of industrial-size plants for manufacturing plutonium and uranium. [13] Groves recruited the DuPont Company to be the prime contractor for the construction of the plutonium production complex. DuPont recommended that it be located far away from the existing uranium production facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The ideal site was described by these criteria: [23]

In December 1942, Groves dispatched his assistant Colonel Franklin T. Matthias and DuPont engineers to scout potential sites. Matthias reported that Hanford was "ideal in virtually all respects", except for the farming towns of White Bluffs and Hanford. [24] General Groves visited the site in January 1943 and established the Hanford Engineer Works, codenamed "Site W". The federal government quickly acquired the land under its war powers authority [25] and relocated some 1,500 residents of Hanford, White Bluffs, and nearby settlements, as well as the Wanapum people, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Nez Perce Tribe. [26] [27]


B Reactor construction (1944) Hanford B reactor construction.jpg
B Reactor construction (1944)

The Hanford Engineer Works (HEW) broke ground in March 1943 and immediately launched a massive and technically challenging construction project. [28] DuPont advertised for workers in newspapers for an unspecified "war construction project" in southeastern Washington, offering "attractive scale of wages" and living facilities. [29]

The construction workers (who reached a peak of 44,900 in June 1944) lived in a construction camp near the old Hanford townsite. The administrators and engineers lived in the government town established at Richland Village, which eventually had accommodation in 4,300 family units and 25 dormitories. [30] [31]

Construction of the nuclear facilities proceeded rapidly. Before the end of the war in August 1945, the HEW built 554 buildings at Hanford, including three nuclear reactors (105-B, 105-D, and 105-F) and three plutonium processing canyons (221-T, 221-B, and 221-U), each 250 meters (820 ft) long. [23]

To receive the radioactive wastes from the chemical separations process, the HEW built "tank farms" consisting of 64 single-shell underground waste tanks (241-B, 241-C, 241-T, and 241-U). [32] The project required 386 miles (621 km) of roads, 158 miles (254 km) of railway, and four electrical substations. The HEW used 780,000 cubic yards (600,000 m3) of concrete and 40,000 short tons (36,000  t) of structural steel and consumed $230 million between 1943 and 1946. [33] :35–36

Plutonium production

The B Reactor (105-B) at Hanford was the first large-scale plutonium production reactor in the world. It was designed and built by DuPont based on an experimental design by Enrico Fermi, and originally operated at 250  megawatts (thermal). The reactor was graphite moderated and water cooled. It consisted of a 28-by-36-foot (8.5 by 11.0 m), 1,200-short-ton (1,100 t) graphite cylinder lying on its side, penetrated through its entire length horizontally by 2,004 aluminium tubes. [34] Two hundred short tons (180 t) of uranium slugs, 1.625 inches (4.13 cm) diameter by 8 inches (20 cm) long, sealed in aluminium cans went into the tubes. [35] Cooling water was pumped through the aluminium tubes around the uranium slugs at the rate of 30,000 US gallons (110,000 L) per minute. [34]

The B Reactor during construction Hanford B Reactor.jpg
The B Reactor during construction

Construction on B Reactor began in August 1943 and was completed on September 13, 1944. The reactor went critical in late September and, after overcoming neutron poisoning, produced its first plutonium on November 6, 1944. [36] Plutonium was produced in the Hanford reactors when a uranium-238 atom in a fuel slug absorbed a neutron to form uranium-239. U-239 rapidly undergoes beta decay to form neptunium-239, which rapidly undergoes a second beta decay to form plutonium-239. The irradiated fuel slugs were transported by rail to three huge remotely operated chemical separation plants called "canyons" that were about 10 miles (16 km) away. A series of chemical processing steps separated the small amount of plutonium that was produced from the remaining uranium and the fission waste products. This first batch of plutonium was refined in the 221-T plant from December 26, 1944, to February 2, 1945, and delivered to the Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico on February 5, 1945. [37] The material was used in Trinity, the first nuclear explosion, on July 16, 1945. [38]

Two identical reactors, D Reactor and F reactor, came online in December 1944 and February 1945, respectively. By April 1945, shipments of plutonium were headed to Los Alamos every five days, and Hanford soon provided enough material for the bombs tested at Trinity and dropped over Nagasaki. [39] Throughout this period, the Manhattan Project maintained a top secret classification. Until news arrived of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, fewer than one percent of Hanford's workers knew they were working on a nuclear weapons project. [40] General Groves noted in his memoirs that "We made certain that each member of the project thoroughly understood his part in the total effort; that, and nothing more." [41]

Initially six reactors or "piles" were proposed, when the plutonium was to be used in the gun-type Thin Man bomb. In mid-1944 a simple gun-type bomb was found to be impractical for plutonium, and the more advanced Fat Man bomb, an implosion device, required less plutonium. [42] The number of piles was reduced to four and then three; and the number of chemical separation plants from four to three. [43] :136

Technological innovations

In the short time frame of the Manhattan Project, Hanford engineers produced many significant technological advances. As no one had ever built an industrial-scale nuclear reactor before, scientists were unsure how much heat would be generated by fission during normal operations. Seeking the greatest possible production while maintaining an adequate safety margin, DuPont engineers installed ammonia-based refrigeration systems with the D and F reactors to further chill the river water before its use as reactor coolant. [44] :70

Another difficulty the engineers struggled with was how to deal with radioactive contamination. Once the canyons began processing irradiated slugs, the machinery would become so radioactive that it would be unsafe for humans ever to come in contact with it. The engineers therefore had to devise methods to allow for the replacement of any component via remote control. They came up with a modular cell concept, which allowed major components to be removed and replaced by an operator sitting in a heavily shielded overhead crane. This method required early practical application of two technologies that later gained widespread use: Teflon, used as a gasket material, and closed-circuit television, used to give the crane operator a better view of the process. [44] :interview with Generaux

Cold War expansion

Decommissioning D Reactor Hanford D Reactor.jpg
Decommissioning D Reactor

In September 1946, the General Electric Company assumed management of the Hanford Works under the supervision of the newly created Atomic Energy Commission. As the Cold War began, the United States faced a new strategic threat in the rise of the Soviet nuclear weapons program. In August 1947, the Hanford Works announced funding for the construction of two new weapons reactors and research to develop a new chemical separations process, entering a new phase of expansion. [45]

By 1963, the Hanford Site was home to nine nuclear reactors along the Columbia River, five reprocessing plants on the central plateau, and more than 900 support buildings and radiological laboratories around the site. [2] Extensive modifications and upgrades were made to the original three World War II reactors, and a total of 177 underground waste tanks were built. [2] Hanford was at its peak production from 1956 to 1965. Over the entire 40 years of operations, the site produced about 63 short tons (57 t) of plutonium, supplying the majority of the 60,000 weapons in the U.S. arsenal. [2] [3] Uranium-233 was also produced. [46] [47] [48] [49]

In 1976, a Hanford technician named Harold McCluskey received the largest recorded dose of americium following a laboratory accident. Due to prompt medical intervention, he survived the incident and died eleven years later of natural causes. [50]


Most of the reactors were shut down between 1964 and 1971, with an average individual life span of 22 years. The last reactor, N Reactor, continued to operate as a dual-purpose reactor, being both a power reactor used to feed the civilian electrical grid via the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) and a plutonium production reactor for nuclear weapons. N Reactor operated until 1987. Since then, most of the Hanford reactors have been entombed ("cocooned") to allow the radioactive materials to decay, and the surrounding structures have been removed and buried. [51] The B-Reactor has not been cocooned and is accessible to the public on occasional guided tours. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992, [52] and some historians advocated converting it into a museum. [53] [54] B reactor was designated a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service on August 19, 2008. [55] [56] [38]

Weapons Production Reactors [57]
Reactor nameStart-up dateShutdown dateInitial power
Final power
Interim safe storage status
B ReactorSep 1944Feb 19682502210Not cocooned, hazards mitigation authorized 2001 [58]
D ReactorDec 1944Jun 196725021652004 [59]
F ReactorFeb 1945Jun 196525020402003 [60]
H ReactorOct 1949Apr 196540021402005 [61]
DR ("D Replacement") ReactorOct 1950Dec 196425020152002 [62]
C ReactorNov 1952Apr 196965025001998 [63]
KW ("K West") ReactorJan 1955Feb 197018004400Preliminary plans, January 30, 2018 [64]
KE ("K East") ReactorApr 1955Jan 197118004400Preliminary plans, January 30, 2018 [64]
N ReactorDec 1963Jan 1987400040002012 [65]

Later operations

Old highway sign on a road entering the Hanford Site Hanford Site sign.jpg
Old highway sign on a road entering the Hanford Site

The United States Department of Energy assumed control of the Hanford Site in 1977. Although uranium enrichment and plutonium breeding were slowly phased out, the nuclear legacy left an indelible mark on the Tri-Cities. Since World War II, the area had developed from a small farming community to a booming "Atomic Frontier" to a powerhouse of the nuclear-industrial complex. [66] Decades of federal investment created a community of highly skilled scientists and engineers. As a result of this concentration of specialized skills, the Hanford Site was able to diversify its operations to include scientific research, test facilities, and commercial nuclear power production.

As of 2013, operational facilities located at the Hanford Site included:

The Department of Energy and its contractors offer tours of the site. The tours are free, can be reserved in advance via the department's web site, and are limited to U.S. citizens at least 18 years of age. [73] [38] Between 2009 and 2018, approximately 80,000 people visited the site, bringing an estimated annual tourist income of two million dollars to the surrounding area. [38]

Tunnel collapse

On the morning of May 9, 2017, a twenty-foot (6 m) section of a 360-foot (110 m) tunnel caved in. It was used to store contaminated materials and was located next to the Plutonium Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Facility in the 200 East Area in the center of the Hanford Site. All non-essential personnel were placed under a take cover alarm on the site. Some 53 truckloads (about 550 cubic yards (420 m3)) of soil were used to fill in the hole. [74]

Environmental concerns

The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, where radioactivity was released from 1944 to 1971 Hare HanfordReach.jpg
The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, where radioactivity was released from 1944 to 1971

A huge volume of water from the Columbia River was required to dissipate the heat produced by Hanford's nuclear reactors. As much as 75,000 gallons per minute was diverted from the Columbia River to cool the reactor. [38]

From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to the river. Before its release into the river, the used water was held in large tanks known as retention basins for up to six hours. Longer-lived isotopes were not affected by this retention, and several terabecquerels entered the river every day. The federal government kept knowledge about these radioactive releases secret. [75] Radiation was later measured 200 miles (320 km) downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts. [76]

The plutonium separation process resulted in the release of radioactive isotopes into the air, which were carried by the wind throughout southeastern Washington and into parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia. [75] Downwinders were exposed to radionuclides, particularly iodine-131, with the heaviest releases during the period from 1945 to 1951. These radionuclides entered the food chain via dairy cows grazing on contaminated fields; hazardous fallout was ingested by communities who consumed radioactive food and milk. Most of these airborne releases were a part of Hanford's routine operations, while a few of the larger releases occurred in isolated incidents. In 1949, an intentional release known as the "Green Run" released 8,000 curies of iodine-131 over two days. [77] Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish, an impact felt disproportionately by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets. [75] A U.S. government report released in 1992 estimated that 685,000 curies of radioactive iodine-131 had been released into the river and air from the Hanford site between 1944 and 1947. [78]

Salmon spawning in the Hanford Reach near the H-Reactor Salmon at Hanford Site.jpg
Salmon spawning in the Hanford Reach near the H-Reactor

Beginning in the 1960s, scientists with the U.S. Public Health Service published reports about radioactivity released from Hanford, and there were protests from the health departments of Oregon and Washington. In response to an article in the Spokane Spokesman Review in September 1985, the Department of Energy announced to declassify environmental records and, in February 1986, released 19,000 pages of previously unavailable historical documents about Hanford's operations. [75] The Washington State Department of Health collaborated with the citizen-led Hanford Health Information Network (HHIN) to publicize data about the health effects of Hanford's operations. HHIN reports concluded that residents who lived downwind from Hanford or who used the Columbia River downstream were exposed to elevated doses of radiation that placed them at increased risk for various cancers and other diseases, [75] particularly forms of Thyroid disease. [38] A mass tort lawsuit brought by two thousand Hanford downwinders against the federal government spent many years in the court system. [38] In 2005, two of six plaintiffs who went to trial were awarded $500,000 in damages. [79] In October 2015, the Department of Energy resolved the final cases. They paid more than $60 million in legal fees and $7 million in damages. [38]

Since 2003, radioactive materials are known to be leaking from Hanford into the environment: "The highest tritium concentration detected in riverbank springs during 2002 was 58,000 pCi/L (2,100 Bq/L) at the Hanford Townsite. The highest iodine-129 concentration of 0.19 pCi/L (0.007 Bq/L) was also found in a Hanford Townsite spring. The WHO guidelines for radionuclides in drinking-water limits levels of iodine-129 at 1 Bq/L, and tritium at 10,000 Bq/L. [80] Concentrations of radionuclides including tritium, technetium-99, and iodine-129 in riverbank springs near the Hanford Townsite have generally been increasing since 1994. This is an area where a major groundwater plume from the 200 East Area intercepts the river ... Detected radionuclides include strontium-90, technetium-99, iodine-129, uranium-234, −235, and −238, and tritium. Other detected contaminants include arsenic, chromium, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and sulfate." [81]

In February 2013, Governor Jay Inslee announced that a tank storing radioactive waste at the site had been leaking liquids on average of 150 to 300 gallons per year. He said that though the leak posed no immediate health risk to the public, it should not be an excuse for not doing anything. [82] On February 22, 2013, the Governor stated that "6 more tanks at Hanford site" were "leaking radioactive waste" [83] As of 2013, there are 177 tanks at Hanford, 149 of which have a single shell. Historically single shell tanks were used for storing radioactive liquid waste and designed to last 20 years. By 2005, some liquid waste was transferred from single shell tanks to (safer) double shell tanks. A substantial amount of residue remains in the older single shell tanks with one containing an estimated 447,000 gallons (1,700 m3) of radioactive sludge, for example. It is believed that up to six of these "empty" tanks are leaking. Two tanks are reportedly leaking at a rate of 300 gallons (1,136 liters) per year each, while the remaining four tanks are leaking at a rate of 15 gallons (57 liters) per year each. [84] [85]

Occupational health concerns

Since 1987, workers have reported exposure to harmful vapors after working around underground nuclear storage tanks, with no solution found. More than 40 workers in 2014 alone reported smelling vapors and became ill with "nosebleeds, headaches, watery eyes, burning skin, contact dermatitis, increased heart rate, difficulty breathing, coughing, sore throats, expectorating, dizziness and nausea, ... Several of these workers have long-term disabilities." Doctors checked workers and cleared them to return to work. Monitors worn by tank workers have found no samples with chemicals close to the federal limit for occupational exposure. [86]

In August 2014, OSHA ordered the facility to rehire a contractor and pay $220,000 in back wages for firing the employee for whistleblowing on safety concerns at the site. [87]

On November 19, 2014, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the state planned to sue the DOE and its contractor to protect workers from hazardous vapors at Hanford. A 2014 report by the DOE Savannah River National Laboratory initiated by 'Washington River Protection Solutions' found that DOE's methods to study vapor releases were inadequate, particularly, that they did not account for short but intense vapor releases. They recommended "proactively sampling the air inside tanks to determine its chemical makeup; accelerating new practices to prevent worker exposures; and modifying medical evaluations to reflect how workers are exposed to vapors". [86]

Cleanup under superfund

Spent nuclear fuel stored underwater and uncapped in Hanford's K-East Basin Spent nuclear fuel hanford.jpg
Spent nuclear fuel stored underwater and uncapped in Hanford's K-East Basin

On June 25, 1988, the Hanford site was divided into four areas and proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List. [88] On May 15, 1989, the Washington Department of Ecology, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Energy entered into the Tri-Party Agreement, which provides a legal framework for environmental remediation at Hanford. [10] As of 2014 the agencies are engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup, with many challenges to be resolved in the face of overlapping technical, political, regulatory, and cultural interests. The cleanup effort is focused on three outcomes: restoring the Columbia River corridor for other uses, converting the central plateau to long-term waste treatment and storage, and preparing for the future. [89] The cleanup effort is managed by the Department of Energy under the oversight of the two regulatory agencies. A citizen-led Hanford Advisory Board provides recommendations from community stakeholders, including local and state governments, regional environmental organizations, business interests, and Native American tribes. [90] Citing the 2014 Hanford Lifecycle Scope Schedule and Cost report, the 2014 estimated cost of the remaining Hanford clean up is $113.6 billion – more than $3 billion per year for the next six years, with a lower cost projection of approximately $2 billion per year until 2046. [91] [92] [93] About 11,000 workers are on site to consolidate, clean up, and mitigate waste, contaminated buildings, and contaminated soil. [4] Originally scheduled to be complete within thirty years, the cleanup was less than half finished by 2008. [93] Of the four areas that were formally listed as Superfund sites on October 4, 1989, only one has been removed from the list following cleanup. [94]

While major releases of radioactive material ended with the reactor shutdown in the 1970s and many of the most dangerous wastes are contained, there are continued concerns about contaminated groundwater headed toward the Columbia River and about workers' health and safety. [93]

The most significant challenge at Hanford is stabilizing the 53,000,000 US gallons (200,000,000 l; 44,000,000 imp gal) of high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks. By 1998, about a third of these tanks had leaked waste into the soil and groundwater. [95] As of 2008, most of the liquid waste had been transferred to more secure double-shelled tanks; however, 2,800,000 US gallons (11,000,000 l; 2,300,000 imp gal) of liquid waste, together with 27,000,000 US gallons (100,000,000 l; 22,000,000 imp gal) of salt cake and sludge, remains in the single-shelled tanks. [4] DOE lacks information about the extent to which the 27 double-shell tanks may be susceptible to corrosion. Without determining the extent to which the factors that contributed to the leak in AY-102 were similar to the other 27 double-shell tanks, DOE cannot be sure how long its double-shell tanks can safely store waste. [5] That waste was originally scheduled to be removed by 2018. As of 2008, the revised deadline was 2040. [93] Nearby aquifers contain an estimated 270,000,000,000 US gallons (1.0×1012 l; 2.2×1011 imp gal) of contaminated groundwater as a result of the leaks. [96] As of 2008, 1,000,000 US gallons (3,800,000 l; 830,000 imp gal) of radioactive waste is traveling through the groundwater toward the Columbia River. This waste is expected to reach the river in 12 to 50 years if cleanup does not proceed on schedule. [4] The site includes 25 million cubic feet (710,000 m3) of solid radioactive waste. [96]

Grand opening of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) Handfor ERDF Grand Opening.jpg
Grand opening of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF)

Under the Tri-Party Agreement, lower-level hazardous wastes are buried in huge lined pits that will be sealed and monitored with sophisticated instruments for many years. Disposal of plutonium and other high-level wastes is a more difficult problem that continues to be a subject of intense debate. As an example, plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,100 years, and a decay of ten half-lives is required before a sample is considered to cease its radioactivity. [97] [98] In 2000, the Department of Energy awarded a $4.3 billion contract to Bechtel, a San Francisco-based construction and engineering firm, to build a vitrification plant to combine the dangerous wastes with glass to render them stable. Construction began in 2002. The plant was originally scheduled to be operational by 2011, with vitrification completed by 2028. [93] [99] [100] According to a 2012 study by the General Accounting Office, there were a number of serious unresolved technical and managerial problems. [101] As of 2013 estimated costs were $13.4 billion with commencement of operations estimated to be in 2022 and about 3 decades of operation. [102]

In May 2007, state and federal officials began closed-door negotiations about the possibility of extending legal cleanup deadlines for waste vitrification in exchange for shifting the focus of the cleanup to urgent priorities, such as groundwater remediation. Those talks stalled in October 2007. In early 2008, a $600 million cut to the Hanford cleanup budget was proposed. Washington state officials expressed concern about the budget cuts, as well as missed deadlines and recent safety lapses at the site, and threatened to file a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Energy was in violation of environmental laws. [93] They appeared to step back from that threat in April 2008 after another meeting of federal and state officials resulted in progress toward a tentative agreement. [103]

During excavations from 2004 to 2007 a sample of purified plutonium was uncovered inside a safe in a waste trench, and has been dated to about the 1940s, making it the second-oldest sample of purified plutonium known to exist. Analyses published in 2009 concluded that the sample originated at Oak Ridge, and was one of several sent to Hanford for optimization tests of the T-Plant until Hanford could produce its own plutonium. Documents refer to such a sample, belonging to "Watt's group", which was disposed of in its safe when a radiation leak was suspected. [104] [105]

Some of the radioactive waste at Hanford was supposed to be stored in the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, [106] but after that project was suspended, Washington State sued, joined by South Carolina. [107] Their first suit was dismissed in July 2011. [108] In a subsequent suit, federal authorities were ordered to either approve or reject plans for the Yucca Mountain storage site. [109]

A potential radioactive leak was reported in 2013; the clean up was estimated to have cost $40 billion with $115 billion more required. [110]

Hanford organizations

The Hanford site operations were initially directed by Colonel Franklin Matthias of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Postwar the Atomic Energy Commission took over, and then the Energy Research and Development Administration. Since 1977, Hanford operations are directed by the U.S. Department of Energy. It has been operated under government contract by various private companies over the years, as summarized in the table through 2000. [111]

Year begunMonthOrganizationResponsibilityRemarks
1942December 12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lead U.S. Government entityHeld role until January 1, 1947
1942December 12E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (DuPont)All site activitiesInitial Hanford site contractor
1946September 1General Electric Company (GE)All site activitiesReplaced DuPont
1947January 1 Atomic Energy Commission Lead U.S. Government entityReplaced U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1953May 15Vitro EngineersHanford Engineering ServicesAssumed GEs new facility design role
1953June 1J.A. Jones ConstructionHanford Construction ServicesAssumed GEs construction role
1965January 1U.S. TestingEnvironmental & bioassay testingAssumed GEs environmental and bioassay testing role
1965January 4 Battelle Memorial Institute Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL)Assumed GE's laboratory operations – subsequently renamed Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
1965July 1Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC)Computer servicesNew scope
1965August 1Hanford Occupational Health FoundationIndustrial MedicineAssumed GE's industrial medicine role
1965September 10Douglas United NuclearSingle pass reactor operations & fuel fabricationAssumed part of GE's reactor operations
1966January 1IsochemChemical processingAssumed GE's chemical processing operations
1966March 1ITT Federal Support Services, Inc.Support servicesAssumed
1967July 1Douglas United NuclearN Reactor operationAssumed remainder of GE's reactor operations
1967September 4Atlantic Richfield Hanford CompanyChemical ProcessingReplaced Isochem
1967August 8Hanford Environmental Health FoundationIndustrial MedicineName change only
1970February 1 Westinghouse Hanford Company Hanford Engineering Development LaboratorySpun off from PNL with mission to build the Fast Flux Test Facility
1971SeptemberARHCOSupport ServicesReplaces ITT/PSS
1973AprilUnited Nuclear Industries, Inc.All production reactor operationsName change from Douglas United Nuclear only
1975January 1 Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA)Lead U.S. Government entityReplaced AEC – managed site until October 1, 1977
1975October 1Boeing Computer Services (BCS)Computer servicesReplaced CSC
1977October 1 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)Lead U.S. Government AgencyReplaced ERDA – manages site presently
1977October 1Rockwell Hanford Operations (RHO)Chemical Processing & Support ServicesReplaces ARCHO
1981JuneBraun Hanford Company (BHC)Architect & Engineering ServicesReplaces Vitro
1982MarchKaiser Engineering Hanford (KEH)Architect & Engineering ServicesReplaces BHC
1987March 1KEHConstructionConsolidated contract includes former J.A. Jones work
1987June 29 WHC Site management & operationsConsolidated contract includes former RHO, UNC & KEH work.
1996October 1 Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc. (FDH)Site management & operationsFDH is integrating contractor with 13 subcontracted companies
2000February 7 Fluor Hanford Site cleanup operationsTransition to site cleanup (13 Fluor subcontractors held various roles)
2000December 11Bechtel National, Inc.Engineering, construction, and commissioning of the Waste Treatment Plant
2008October 1Ch2M Hill Plateau Remediation CompanyCentral plateau cleanup and closure
2009April 8Washington Closure HanfordRiver corridor cleanup and closure
2009May 26Mission Support AllianceSite infrastructure and servicesConsolidated services contract
2009October 1Washington River Protection SolutionsTank Farm operations

Other divisions of the site (historical)

Historic photos

See also

Related Research Articles

Radioactive waste Wastes that contain radioactive material

Radioactive waste is a type of hazardous waste that contains radioactive material. Radioactive waste is a by-product of various nuclear technology processes. Industries generating radioactive waste include nuclear medicine, nuclear research, nuclear power, manufacturing, construction, coal and rare-earth mining and nuclear weapons reprocessing. Radioactive waste is regulated by government agencies in order to protect human health and the environment.

Nuclear reprocessing is the chemical separation of fission products and unused uranium from spent nuclear fuel. Originally, reprocessing was used solely to extract plutonium for producing nuclear weapons. With commercialization of nuclear power, the reprocessed plutonium was recycled back into MOX nuclear fuel for thermal reactors. The reprocessed uranium, also known as the spent fuel material, can in principle also be re-used as fuel, but that is only economical when uranium supply is low and prices are high. A breeder reactor is not restricted to using recycled plutonium and uranium. It can employ all the actinides, closing the nuclear fuel cycle and potentially multiplying the energy extracted from natural uranium by about 60 times.

Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility

A nuclear and radiation accident is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility". Examples include lethal effects to individuals, radioactive isotope to the environment, or reactor core melt." The prime example of a "major nuclear accident" is one in which a reactor core is damaged and significant amounts of radioactive isotopes are released, such as in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.

Rocky Flats Plant United States historic place

The Rocky Flats Plant was a U.S. manufacturing complex that produced nuclear weapons parts in the western United States, near Denver, Colorado. The facility's primary mission was the fabrication of plutonium pits, which were shipped to other facilities to be assembled into nuclear weapons. Operated from 1952 to 1992, the complex was under the control of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), succeeded by the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1977.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant deep geological repository for radioactive waste

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP, is the world's third deep geological repository licensed to store transuranic radioactive waste for 10,000 years. The waste is from the research and production of United States nuclear weapons. The project is estimated to cost $19 billion in total.

Idaho National Laboratory United States Department of Energy complex located in the high desert of eastern Idaho

Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is one of the national laboratories of the United States Department of Energy and is managed by the Battelle Energy Alliance. While the laboratory does other research, historically it has been involved with nuclear research.

Savannah River Site

The Savannah River Site (SRS) is a nuclear reservation in the United States in the state of South Carolina, located on land in Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell counties adjacent to the Savannah River, 25 miles (40 km) southeast of Augusta, Georgia. The site was built during the 1950s to refine nuclear materials for deployment in nuclear weapons. It covers 310 square miles (800 km2) and employs more than 10,000 people.

Integral fast reactor

The integral fast reactor is a design for a nuclear reactor using fast neutrons and no neutron moderator. IFR would breed more fuel and is distinguished by a nuclear fuel cycle that uses reprocessing via electrorefining at the reactor site.

Columbia Generating Station nuclear power plant in Benton County, Washington

Columbia Generating Station is a nuclear commercial energy facility located 10 miles (16 km) north of Richland, Washington. It is owned and operated by Energy Northwest, a Washington state, not-for-profit joint operating agency. Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1983, Columbia first produced electricity in May 1984, and entered commercial operation in December 1984.


PUREX is a chemical method used to purify fuel for nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons. PUREX is the de facto standard aqueous nuclear reprocessing method for the recovery of uranium and plutonium from used nuclear fuel. It is based on liquid–liquid extraction ion-exchange.

West Valley Demonstration Project

The West Valley Demonstration Project is a nuclear waste remediation site in West Valley, New York in the U.S. state of New York. The project focuses on the cleanup and containment of radioactive waste left behind after the abandonment of a commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in 1980. The project was created by an Act of Congress in 1980 and is directed to be a cooperative effort between the United States Department of Energy and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act 1982 U.S. federal law which established a program for the disposal of radioactive waste

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is a United States federal law which established a comprehensive national program for the safe, permanent disposal of highly radioactive wastes.

N-Reactor nuclear reactor at the Hanford Site in Washington, United States

The N-Reactor was a water/graphite-moderated nuclear reactor constructed during the Cold War and operated by the U.S. government at the Hanford Site in Washington; it began production in 1963.

Nuclear safety in the United States US safety regulations for nuclear power and weapons

Nuclear safety in the United States is governed by federal regulations issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC regulates all nuclear plants and materials in the United States except for nuclear plants and materials controlled by the U.S. government, as well those powering naval vessels.

Bismuth phosphate process

The bismuth-phosphate process was used to extract plutonium from irradiated uranium taken from nuclear reactors. It was developed during World War II by Stanley G. Thompson, a chemist working for the Manhattan Project at the University of California, Berkeley. This process was used to produce plutonium at the Hanford Site. Plutonium was used in the atomic bomb that was used in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki in August 1945. The process was superseded in the 1950s by the REDOX and PUREX processes.

The Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP), also known as 'Z Plant', was part of the Hanford Site nuclear research complex in Washington, US.

William Howard Arnold is an American nuclear physicist, with primary areas of expertise in nuclear power, nuclear fuel, and nuclear waste disposal. He was president and manager of the first privately owned uranium-enrichment facility in the United States, Louisiana Energy Services. He was responsible for reactor physics design of the first series of Westinghouse Corporation commercial nuclear reactors, and served as president of the Nuclear International Division of Westinghouse Corporation. He designed nuclear reactor cores for civilian power reactors, for space power and propulsion, and for production of nuclear materials. He managed multidisciplinary groups of engineers and scientists working in reactor core design, and led work that promoted the use of centrifuge technology in uranium enrichment.

Nuclear labor issues Radiation workers health and labor issues

Nuclear labor issues exist within the international nuclear power industry and the nuclear weapons production sector worldwide, impacting upon the lives and health of laborers, itinerant workers and their families.

Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, known as the Vit Plant, is a facility for nuclear waste vitrification at the Hanford Site in Washington. Unlike the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility at Hanford, designed to hold tens of millions of tons of low-level waste, the Vit Plant is designed to immobilize smaller quantities of high-level waste including plutonium. According to prime contractor Bechtel it was designed for 56,000,000 US gallons of liquid waste.


  1. "B Reactor". United States Department of Energy. Archived from the original on February 2, 2010. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Hanford Site: Hanford Overview". United States Department of Energy. Archived from the original on May 11, 2012. Retrieved February 13, 2012.
  3. 1 2 "Science Watch: Growing Nuclear Arsenal". The New York Times. April 28, 1987. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 "Hanford Quick Facts". Washington Department of Ecology. Archived from the original on June 24, 2008. Retrieved January 19, 2010.
  5. 1 2 GAO (November 25, 2014). "Condition of Tanks May Further Limit DOE's Ability to Respond to Leaks and Intrusions—Highlights". U.S. GAO. Retrieved December 22, 2014.
  6. Stang, John (December 21, 2010). "Spike in radioactivity a setback for Hanford cleanup". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
  7. Deutsch, William J.; et al. (2007). Hanford Tanks 241-C-202 and 241-C-203 Residual Waste Contaminant Release Models and Supporting Data. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). doi:10.2172/917218.
  8. Swift, Peter (2017). Recent Developments in Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel. Sandia National Laboratories.
  9. Dininny, Shannon (April 3, 2007). "U.S. to Assess the Harm from Hanford". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Associated Press. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  10. 1 2 Schneider, Keith (February 28, 1989). "Agreement for a Cleanup at Nuclear Site". The New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2008.
  11. Richard, Terry (November 10, 2015). "Washington's Hanford becomes part of national historical park". The Oregonian . Retrieved April 4, 2016.
  12. "The Columbia River at Risk: Why Hanford Cleanup is Vital to Oregon". oregon.gov. August 1, 2007. Archived from the original on June 2, 2010. Retrieved March 31, 2008.
  13. 1 2 3 4 Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943–1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.12. ISBN   1-57477-133-7.
  14. Seelye, Katharine (June 10, 2000). "Gore Praises Move to Aid Salmon Run". The New York Times. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  15. "Site Map Area and Description". Columbia Riverkeepers. Archived from the original on February 8, 2007. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  16. Lewis, Mike (April 19, 2002). "In strange twist, Hanford cleanup creates latest boom". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  17. "HANFORD A E C, WASHINGTON (453444)". Western Regional Climate Center. Retrieved April 27, 2016.
  18. Hanford Island Archaeological Site (NRHP #76001870) and Hanford North Archaeological District (NRHP #76001871). "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places . National Park Service. January 23, 2007. (See also the commercial site National Register of Historic Places.)
  19. Gerber, Michele (2002). On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site (2nd ed.). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 16–22. ISBN   0-8032-7101-8.
  20. Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943–1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.10. ISBN   1-57477-133-7.
  21. Weber, Bert. (1985) p. vi; "Silent Siege-II, Japanese Attacks On North America In WWII." Webber Research Group, ISBN   0-936738-26-X
  22. 1 2 Gerber, Michele (1992). Legend and Legacy: Fifty Years of Defense Production at the Hanford Site. Richland, Washington: Westinghouse Hanford Company. p. 6. doi:10.2172/10144167. OSTI   10144167.
  23. Franklin, Matthias (January 14, 1987). Hanford Engineer Works, Manhattan Engineer District: Early History. Speech to the Technical Exchange Program.
  24. Second War Powers Act 56 Stat. 176 (1942)
  25. Department of Energy: Hanford. "Department of Energy's Tribal Program: The DOE Tribal Program at Hanford". DOE Hanford.gov. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
  26. Brown, Kate (2013). Plutopia: nuclear families, atomic cities, and the great Soviet and American plutonium disasters. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 33–36. ISBN   978-0-19-985576-6.
  27. Oldham, Kit (March 5, 2003). "Construction of massive plutonium production complex at Hanford begins in March 1943". History Link. Retrieved April 6, 2008.
  28. "Needed by E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company for Pacific Northwest (advertisement)". Milwaukee Sentinel. June 6, 1944. pp. 1–5. Retrieved March 25, 2013.
  29. Nichols, K. D. The Road to Trinity page 138 (1987, Morrow, New York) ISBN   0-688-06910-X
  30. Thayer, H. (1996). Management of the Hanford Engineer Works in World War II. New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers Press.
  31. Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943–1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.21–1.23. ISBN   1-57477-133-7.
  32. Gerber, Michele (2002). On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site (2nd ed.). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN   0-8032-7101-8.
  33. 1 2 Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943–1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.15, 1.30. ISBN   1-57477-133-7.
  34. Harvey, David; O'Conner, Georganne. "History of the Hanford Site 1943–1990" (PDF). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. p. 11. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
  35. Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943–1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.22–1.27. ISBN   1-57477-133-7.
  36. Findlay, John; Bruce Hevly (1995). Nuclear Technologies and Nuclear Communities: A History of Hanford and the Tri-Cities, 1943–1993. Seattle, WA: Hanford History Project, Center for the Study of the Pacific Northwest, University of Washington. p. 50.
  37. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Boyle, Rebecca (2017). "Greetings from Isotopia". Distillations. 3 (3): 26–35. Retrieved June 14, 2018.
  38. Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943–1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.27. ISBN   1-57477-133-7.
  39. Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943–1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.22. ISBN   1-57477-133-7.
  40. Groves, Leslie (1983). Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project. New York, NY: Da Capo Press. p. xv.
  41. "Nuclear Weapons Primer". Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. Retrieved August 25, 2018.
  42. Nichols, Kenneth (1987). The Road to Trinity. New York: William Morrow. ISBN   0-688-06910-X.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  43. 1 2 Sanger, S. L. Working on the Bomb: an Oral History of WWII Hanford. Portland, Oregon: Continuing Education Press, Portland State University.
  44. Hanford Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy (2002). Hanford Site Historic District: History of the Plutonium Production Facilities, 1943–1990. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. p. 1.42–45. ISBN   1-57477-133-7.
  45. "Historical use of thorium at Hanford" (PDF). hanfordchallenge.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 12, 2013. Retrieved February 7, 2015.
  46. "Chronology of Important FOIA Documents: Hanford's Semi-Secret Thorium to U-233 Production Campaign" (PDF). hanfordchallenge.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 15, 2012. Retrieved February 7, 2015.
  47. "Questions and Answers on Uranium-233 at Hanford" (PDF). radioactivist.org. Retrieved February 7, 2015.
  48. "Hanford Radioactivity in Salmon Spawning Grounds" (PDF). clarku.edu. Retrieved February 7, 2015.
  49. "Hanford nuclear workers enter site of worst contamination accident". Billings Gazette . Associated Press. June 3, 2005. Archived from the original on October 13, 2007. Retrieved March 6, 2017.
  50. "Cocooning Hanford Reactors". City of Richland. December 2, 2003. Archived from the original on June 11, 2008. Retrieved January 31, 2008.
  51. NRHP site #92000245. "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places . National Park Service. January 23, 2007. (See also the commercial site National Register of Historic Places.)
  52. "B-Reactor Museum Association". B Reactor Museum Association. January 2008. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  53. "Big Step Toward B Reactor Preservation". KNDO/KNDU News. March 12, 2008. Archived from the original on June 10, 2008. Retrieved April 6, 2008.
  54. Chemical & Engineering News Vol. 86 No. 35, September 1, 2008, "Hanford's B Reactor gets LANDMARK Status", p. 37
  55. "National Historic Landmarks Program – B Reactor". National Park Service. August 19, 2007. Retrieved January 5, 2009.
  56. "Plutonium: the first 50 years: United States plutonium production, acquisition, and utilization from 1944 through 1994". U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  57. Potter, Robert F. "Preserving the Hanford B-Reactor: A Monument to the Dawn of the Nuclear Age". APS Physics. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  58. "D and DR Reactors". Hanford.gov. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  59. Cary, Annette (October 22, 2014). "Hanford's F Reactor passes 5-year inspection". Tri-City Herald. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  60. "H Reactor". Hanford.gov. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  61. "ISS Reactors". Hanford.gov. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  62. Cary, Annette (July 4, 2015). "Looking inside Hanford's cocooned reactors". Tri-City Herald. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  63. 1 2 Office of Environmental Management (January 30, 2018). "Hanford Workers Enter Reactor to Prepare for Cocooning". Energy.gov. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  64. Office of Environmental Management (June 14, 2012). "N Reactor Placed In Interim Safe Storage: Largest Hanford Reactor Cocooning Project Now Complete". Energy.gov. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  65. Hevly, Bruce; John Findlay (1998). The Atomic West. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
  66. Cary, Annette (June 3, 2009). "Fast Flux Test Facility shutdown completed at Hanford". Hanford News. Archived from the original on November 17, 2010.
  67. Twilley, Nicola. "Gravitational Waves Exist: The Inside Story of How Scientists Finally Found Them". The New Yorker. ISSN   0028-792X . Retrieved February 12, 2016.
  68. Abbott, B.P.; et al. (2016). "Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger". Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (6): 061102. arXiv: 1602.03837 . Bibcode:2016PhRvL.116f1102A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102. PMID   26918975.
  69. Naeye, Robert (February 11, 2016). "Gravitational Wave Detection Heralds New Era of Science". Sky and Telescope. Retrieved February 12, 2016.
  70. Castelvecchi, Davide; Witze, Alexandra (February 11, 2016). "Einstein's gravitational waves found at last". Nature News. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.19361 . Retrieved February 11, 2016.
  71. "Submarine". navy.memorieshop.com. Retrieved February 7, 2015.
  72. "Tour Information". United States Department of Energy / Hanford.gov. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
  73. "Hanford Emergency Information". hanford.gov. U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations. May 9, 2017. Archived from the original on May 10, 2017. Retrieved May 9, 2017.
  74. 1 2 3 4 5 "An Overview of Hanford and Radiation Health Effects". Hanford Health Information Network. Archived from the original on January 6, 2010. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  75. "Radiation Flowed 200 Miles to Sea, Study Finds". The New York Times. July 17, 1992. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  76. Gerber, Michele (2002). On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site (2nd ed.). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 78–80. ISBN   0-8032-7101-8.
  77. Martin, Hugo (August 13, 2008). "Nuclear site now a tourist hot spot". The Los Angeles Times.
  78. McClure, Robert (May 21, 2005). "Downwinders' court win seen as 'great victory'". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  79. "Radiological Aspects (water sanitation)" (PDF). www.who.int. WHO.
  80. "Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization" (PDF). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. September 2005. PNNL-6415 Rev. 17.
  81. "Tank storing radioactive waste leaking in Washington". CNN. February 16, 2013. Retrieved February 15, 2013.
  82. "Washington Gov. Inslee's office: 6 more tanks at Hanford site are leaking radioactive waste". Breaking News. Retrieved February 22, 2013.
  83. "Gov: 6 underground Hanford nuclear tanks leaking | Inquirer News". Newsinfo.inquirer.net. March 23, 2004. Retrieved February 23, 2013.
  84. Johnson, Eric (February 1, 2013). "Radioactive waste leaking from six tanks at Washington state nuclear site". Reuters. Retrieved February 23, 2013.
  85. 1 2 Nicholas K. Geranios (November 19, 2014). "Washington to sue over nuclear site's tank vapors". Associated Press. Retrieved December 19, 2014.
  86. "OSHA orders Hanford nuclear facility contractor to reinstate worker fired for raising environmental safety concerns". OSHA. August 20, 2014.
  87. "Hanford – Washington Superfund site". U.S. EPA. Retrieved February 3, 2010.
  88. "Hanford Site Tour Script" (PDF). United States Department of Energy. October 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 27, 2008. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  89. "Hanford Site: Hanford Advisory Board". United States Department of Energy . Retrieved February 14, 2012.
  90. Tri-Party Agreement: Department of Energy, Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (February 2014). "2014 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report" (PDF). DOE, WSDE, EPA. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
  91. Cary, Annette (February 21, 2014). "New Hanford clean up price tag is $113.6B". Yakima Herald. Archived from the original on April 20, 2014. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
  92. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stiffler, Lisa (March 20, 2008). "Troubled Hanford cleanup has state mulling lawsuit". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
  93. "Hanford 1100-Area (USDOE) Superfund site". U.S. EPA. Retrieved February 3, 2010.
  94. Wald, Matthew (January 16, 1998). "Panel Details Management Flaws at Hanford Nuclear Waste Site". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 11, 2008. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  95. 1 2 Wolman, David (April 2007). "Fission Trip". Wired Magazine. p. 78.
  96. Hanson, Laura A. (November 2000). "Radioactive Waste Contamination of Soil and Groundwater at the Hanford Site" (PDF). University of Idaho. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 27, 2008. Retrieved January 31, 2008.
  97. Gephart, Roy (2003). Hanford: A Conversation About Nuclear Waste and Cleanup. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. ISBN   1-57477-134-5.
  98. Dininny, Shannon (September 8, 2006). "Hanford plant now $12.2 billion". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved January 29, 2007.
  99. The Economist , "Nuclear waste: From bombs to $800 handbags", March 19, 2011, p. 40.
  100. "Hanford Waste Treatment Plant: DOE Needs to Take Action to Resolve Technical and Management Challenges". General Accounting Office. December 19, 2012. GAO-13-38. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
  101. Valerie Brown (May 9, 2013). "Hanford Nuclear Waste Cleanup Plant May Be Too Dangerous: Safety issues make plans to clean up a mess left over from the construction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal uncertain". Scientific American. Retrieved May 9, 2013. The Vit Plant was supposed to start operating in 2007 and is now projected to begin in 2022. Its original budget was $4.3 billion and is now estimated at $13.4 billion.
  102. Stiffler, Lisa (April 3, 2008). "State steps back from brink of Hanford suit". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved May 8, 2008.
  103. Chemical & Engineering News: Antique Plutonium: Manhattan Project-era plutonium is found in a glass jug during Hanford Site cleanup (subscription required)
  104. Annette Cary (January 25, 2009). "Historic plutonium found in safe at Hanford". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
  105. Shannon Dininny (April 14, 2010). "Washington sues to keep Yucca alive". The Spokesman-Review . Associated Press . Retrieved March 14, 2012.
  106. "Appeals court rejects Yucca Mountain lawsuit". World Nuclear News . April 7, 2011. Retrieved March 14, 2012.
  107. Chad Mills (July 2, 2011). "Aiken County still optimistic after Yucca Mountain lawsuit dismissed in federal court". Tri-City Herald . Archived from the original on June 18, 2013. Retrieved March 14, 2012.
  108. Daly, Matthew (August 13, 2013). "Home> Politics Appeals Court: Obama Violating Law on Nuke Site". ABC News. Retrieved August 14, 2013.
  109. "Possible radioactive leak into soil at Hanford". CBS News. June 21, 2013.
  110. Briggs, J.D. (March 22, 2001). "Historical Time Line and Information about the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington" (PDF). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Retrieved February 14, 2012.
  111. 1 2 Lini, D.C.; L. H. Rodgers / SAIC / FH (March 2002). "Plutonium Finishing Plant Plutonium- Uranium Oxide" (PDF). US DOE . Retrieved October 1, 2009.
  112. 1 2 3 "222-S Hanford Site". Advanced Technologies and Laboratories Intl. Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
  113. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gerber, M.S. (February 2001). "History of Hanford Site Defense Production (Brief)" (PDF). Fluor Hanford / US DOE . Retrieved October 1, 2009.
  114. Freer, Brian; Charles Conway (June 2002). History of the Plutonium Production Facilities at the Hanford Site Historic District, 1943–1990. Section 4 – Chemical Separations (PDF). US DOE. doi:10.2172/807939.
  115. Brevick, Stroup, Funk; et al. (1997). "Supporting Document for the Historical Tank Content Estimate for SY-Tank Farm". US DOE . Retrieved October 5, 2009.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  116. Johnson; et al. (1994). "Historical records of radioactive contamination in biota at the 200 Areas of the Hanford Site". US DOE . Retrieved October 5, 2009.
  117. Carbaugh E.H., Bihl, D.E., and MacLellan, J.A. (January 1, 2003). "Methods and Models of the Hanford Internal Dosimetry Program, PNNL-MA-860" (PDF). Retrieved October 5, 2009.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  118. Mecca, J.E. (June 2000). Executive Summary Hanford Recycled Uranium Project (PDF). US DOE. doi:10.2172/803918. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2008. Retrieved October 5, 2009.
  119. Nuclear Engineering International (January 23, 2014). "Hanford removes plutonium test reactor". neimagazine.com. Retrieved January 24, 2014.
  120. "Massive Hanford Test Reactor Removed – Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor removed from Hanford's 300 Area". Department of Energy. January 22, 2014. Archived from the original on January 29, 2014. Retrieved January 24, 2014.

Further reading