JDR Vol.17 No.7 pp. 1165-1182
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2022.p1165


Public Attitudes Toward Decontamination and Regional Regeneration: A Case Study of Hanford Site in Washington

Tetsuya Nakamura*,†, Steven Lloyd*, Atsushi Maruyama**, and Satoru Masuda***

*Kyoei University
4158 Uchimaki, Kasukabe, Saitama 344-0051, Japan

Corresponding author

**Chiba University, Matsudo, Japan

***Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

February 5, 2022
September 9, 2022
December 1, 2022
Washington State, Hanford Site, decontamination, urban development, web survey

The Hanford Site in Washington State is the most contaminated area in the United States and is one of the biggest decontamination efforts in the world. During the Cold War, the area was shrouded by secrecy, including denials of any dangers to the environment, workers, and local communities downwind of the site. Efforts to regenerate neighboring areas are ongoing, including establishing the area as a national park and national monument, investing in local communities, plans to re-establish a town, encouraging viticulture and other agricultural activities, and encouraging the return of spawning salmon to the Columbia River. Rising costs and delays have hampered efforts in the clean-up process. Through an online survey, this study examines the local people’s attitudes toward these various efforts at urban and agricultural regeneration, their attitude toward information from the authorities, and budgeting for decontamination. It was found that there is widespread support for the establishment of park status for the site and that organic certification of produce has had a positive impact on purchasing intentions. However, there remains a degree of skepticism about the information about the decontamination process, and support for budgeting plans falls largely along partisan lines.

Cite this article as:
T. Nakamura, S. Lloyd, A. Maruyama, and S. Masuda, “Public Attitudes Toward Decontamination and Regional Regeneration: A Case Study of Hanford Site in Washington,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.17 No.7, pp. 1165-1182, 2022.
Data files:
  1. [1] Department of Energy, “Hanford Overview,” 2012,, [accessed December 28, 2021]
  2. [2] U.S. Department of Energy, “B Reactor Hanford Washington,”, [accessed December 28, 2021]
  3. [3] New York Times, “Science Watch: Growing Nuclear Arsenal,” April 28, 1987, [accessed December 28, 2021]
  4. [4] R. E. Gephart, “A Short History of Waste Management at the Hanford Site,” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Vol.35, Nos.6-8, pp. 298-306, doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2010.03.032, 2010.
  5. [5] P. Lindholdt and L. Seitz, “Hanford Nuclear Site,” 2020, [accessed January 20, 2022]
  6. [6] Department of Ecology, State of Washington, “Hanford cleanup,” [accessed January 8, 2022]
  7. [7] NBC News, “Cost to Taxpayers to Clean Up Nuclear Waste Jumps $100 Billion in a Year,” January 29, 2019,$100-billion-year-n963586 [accessed January 8, 2022]
  8. [8] U.S. Department of Energy, “Depart of Energy FY 2022 Congressional Budget Request,” Vol.5, 2021, [accessed January 28, 2022]
  9. [9] Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce, “Gross Domestic Product by State, 3rd Quarter 2021,” 2021, [accessed December 28, 2021]
  10. [10] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “State and Metro Area Employment, Hours, & Earnings,” [accessed December 28, 2021]
  11. [11] R. E. Gephart and R. E. Lundgren, “Hanford Tank Cleanup: A Guide to Understanding the Technical Issues,” Battelle Press, 1998.
  12. [12] J. Stang, “Cleaning up nuclear waste at Hanford: Secrecy, delays and budget debates,” Crosscut, August 16, 2021, [accessed January 28, 2022]
  13. [13] M. J. Hartman, L. F. Morasch, and W. D. Webber (Eds.), “Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring for Fiscal Year 2005,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2006.
  14. [14] M. Dai, K. O. Buesseler, and S. M. Pike, “Plutonium in Groundwater at the 100K-Area of the U.S. DOE Hanford Site,” J. of Contaminant Hydrology, Vol.76, Nos.3-4, pp. 167-189, doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2004.08.004, 2005.
  15. [15] E. S. Gilbert, G. R. Petersen, and J. A. Buchanan, “Mortality of Workers at the Hanford Site: 1945–1981,” Health Physics, Vol.56, No.1, pp. 11-25, doi: 10.1097/00004032-198901000-00001, 1989.
  16. [16] E. S. Gilbert, D. L. Cragle, and L. D. Wiggs, “Updated Analyses of Combined Mortality Data for Workers at the Hanford Site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Rocky Flats Weapons Plant,” Radiation Research, Vol.136, No.3, pp. 408-421, doi: 10.2307/3578555, 1993.
  17. [17] T. Nakamura, “About the Hanford Site,” Zaikai Fukushima, Vol.49, No.11, pp. 117-128, 2020.
  18. [18] Y. Onishi, “Hanford Decontamination Efforts and Tri-City Local Industry Development Activities,” 2014, (in Japanese) [accessed January 2, 2022]
  19. [19] Fukushima Hamadori (FH) Tridec, [accessed November 7, 2022]
  20. [20] J. Pasley, “Inside America’s most toxic nuclear waste dump, where 56 million gallons of buried radioactive sludge are leaking into the earth,” Insider, September 23, 2019, [accessed January 2, 2021]
  21. [21] N. Ishiyama, “The Violence of Nuclear Development Reading the Geospatial of Plutonium Production Sites,” The Bulletin of Arts and Sciences, Meiji University, Vol.506, pp. 23-47, 2015 (in Japanese).
  22. [22] T. Nakamura, S. Masuda, A. Maruyama, and Y. Yano, “Citizen Satisfaction and Continuing Intentions Regarding Support and Compensation Prescribed by the Chernobyl Act: A Case Study of the Russian Central Federal District,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.14, No.8, pp. 1086-1104, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2019.p1086, 2019.
  23. [23] T. Nakamura, S. Masuda, A. Kuchiki, and A. Maruyama, “Effects of Radioactive Contamination from the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site on Behavior Related to Food Choices: A Case Study of Kazakhstan,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.15, No.7, pp. 991-1010, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2020.p0991, 2020.
  24. [24] T. Nakamura, S. Lloyd, A. Maruyama, and S. Masuda, “Public Reaction to Disaster Reconstruction Policy: Case Studies of the Fukushima and Chernobyl Nuclear Accidents,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.16, No.8, pp. 1207-1233, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2021.p1207, 2021.
  25. [25] Salmon-Safe, “About Salmon-Safe,” [accessed January 11, 2022]
  26. [26] U.S. Fisheries & Wildlife Service, “About Hanford Reach National Monument,” [accessed January 3, 2022]
  27. [27] Office of Financial Management, State of Washington, “Distribution of Washington population by age and gender,” [accessed January 6, 2022]
  28. [28] Office of Financial Management, State of Washington, “Educational attainment.” [accessed on January 7, 2022]
  29. [29] CNN, “Washington Presidential Election Results and Maps 2020,” [accessed January 7, 2022]
  30. [30] Office of Financial Management, State of Washington, “Population by race,” [accessed January 7, 2022]
  31. [31] U.S. Census Bureau, “QuickFacts: Washington.” [accessed January 7, 2022]
  32. [32] C. Tate, “Hanford Reach National Monument,” 2005, [accessed January 8, 2022]
  33. [33] U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Today in Energy – Renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020,” [accessed November 7, 2022]
  34. [34] University of Idaho, “About: Columbia River Basin Project: Dam Construction in the Pacific Northwest,” [accessed January 8, 2022]
  35. [35] U.S. Department of Energy, “Interior and Energy Departments Formally Establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park,” [accessed January 18, 2022]
  36. [36] OregonLive, “For first time in years, Chinook salmon spawn in upper Columbia River system,” December 18, 2020, [accessed January 18, 2022]
  37. [37] “2016 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report,” 2016, [accessed January 18, 2022]
  38. [38] Department of Energy, “2019 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report,” 2019, [accessed January 18, 2022]
  39. [39] T. Nakamura, “About the Hanford Area,” 2019, (in Japanese) [accessed January 21, 2022]
  40. [40] Consulate-General of Japan in Seattle, “Earthquake Prone Areas: Washington State-Earthquake Preparedness,” (in Japanese) [accessed January 27, 2022]
  41. [41] Washington State Department of Natural Resources, “Earthquakes and Faults,” [accessed January 27, 2022]
  42. [42] J. R. Biden, “Statement by Vice President Joe Biden on the 75th Anniversary of Hiroshima,” August 6, 2020, [accessed January 1, 2022]

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Jul. 12, 2024