On June 30, 2025, U.S. Dept of Energy (Energy) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public meeting on two proposals for how to proceed with safely removing and remediating the 324 building and the soils beneath B Cell, known as 300-296 Waste Site.
Need a refresher on the history of the 324 building and why the cleanup plan needs amending? Read More.
Thank you to the over seventy who attended the public meeting, in person or virtually, to listen and ask questions about the Proposed Plan for amending the cleanup plan for the 300 Area at Hanford (“Proposed Plan”). We are thankful to the agencies for providing this opportunity to ask questions about the Proposed Plan and how they intended to protect the public, the workers, and Tribal treaty rights of Yakama Nation while cleaning up the 324 Building at Hanford.
In a meeting that went thirty minutes over the allotted time, the primary concerns raised were how this Proposed Plan would prioritize the safety of the workers safety and the communities surrounding the Hanford site, as well as the impact that this Proposed Plan would have on groundwater and air quality.
If you missed the meeting and still want to make your voice heard, sign the petition urging Energy and EPA to appropriately classify the soils below the 324 building as high level waste, and to proceed with cleanup that protects workers, groundwater, and the Columbia River. Don’t forget to share the petition with friends and family!
The Proposed Plan
In the Proposed Plan, Energy presented EPA with two proposals on how to proceed with cleanup, given that the contamination at the 324 Building was more extensive and dangerous than originally anticipated. The plan outlines two proposals:
- The “coupled approach,” which consists of partial excavation of the site, the demolition of the 324 building, and then the remaining excavation occurring under containment (essentially a large tent with a membrane to prevent contaminants from spreading.)
- The “decoupled approach,” which consists of building demolition first, and then the entire excavation process happening under containment. This is Energy’s preferred plan because the agency stated that it is safer for workers, due to less industrial and radiological hazards associated with having to replace failing and aging equipment in the building.
Despite Energy’s assertion that the “decoupled approach” is safer for workers, the Proposed Plan leaves a lot to the imagination in terms of how exactly it’s safer. Good thing the public asked hard-hitting questions to try and get more details.
Here are some questions that were asked, and the responses from Energy and EPA:
Question: Why are the workers in the picture in the presentation not wearing respiratory protection in case of a release?
Response from Energy: That photo was from outside the facility. Before we do any work we go through a lengthy hazard identification process to develop the work package. So, industrial hygiene looks at the work being done and radiological control technician engineers look at it as well and they determine if our conditions are going to be at a certain level to where our workers need to wear PPE or not… The conditions were not at the level where it was required for respiratory PPE… The photos were from soil sample capture in 2011.
Question: How will you be protecting workers when they are in the super structures from extreme temperatures? Specifically, hot and cold, especially when they’re wearing PPE and supplied air. And then you mentioned during your presentation that there have been other superstructures like this used at Hanford, so can you please provide examples?
Response from Energy: So, how do we protect workers? Industrial hygiene, that is something where we actually have active sensors placed on the workers in the [PPE that they wear]… and you don’t want water getting through but it can get hot so that device that is put on workers checks heart rate and temperature… If it’s a certain temperature, there’s an industrial hygienist, there’s a certain amount of time workers are allowed to work before they are told to stop and rest, so there are a number of precautions in place for keeping the workers safe… Off top of my head I cannot say what projects the [superstructures] were used at but along the river corridor, that is something that was used, those types of temporary structures were set up and with the membrane they were able to withstand the winds and they were able to provide containment.
Question: How are workers actually being protected by the decoupled approach compared to the coupled approach?
Response from Energy: Right now if you go into the B cell you are completely shielded from the waste site as is… so the soil, the foundation for the B cell gives you your shielding. So from the perspective of getting some soil out earlier, it does not impact the worker protection factor during building demolition [because] there’s still that shielding in place. The conceptual design, as you mentioned, there would be grout in the hot cells for additional shielding… The soil foundation provides all their shielding.
Question by Dan Serres, CRK Advocacy Director: Will the Hanford Air Operating Permit process provide any opportunity to learn more about 324 in terms of ambient air monitoring?
Response from EPA: We are in discussions with Ben Franklin Health District and they have some external monitoring points that they second check and provide a more independent look, separate from the Hanford Triparties and so in that way I would say that their general air monitoring would provide us some additional data. But, we will have our own separate data as part of the demolition plan and the air monitoring plan. Under the remedial process, we have our own air monitoring plan so there will be, specifically for these actions, CERCLA air monitoring programs as well.
If you would like to listen to the full audio recording of the meeting, which consists of a presentation from Energy and the Q&A after, click here.
Make Your Voice Heard
Urge Energy and EPA to appropriately classify the soils below the 324 building as high level waste, and to proceed with cleanup that protects workers, groundwater, and the Columbia River