The research that caused the spill was in support of nuclear power generation—for testing vitrification of spent nuclear fuel for geologic burial. From OP:

- "In the 1980s one of the building’s six hot cells was being used to prepare concentrated radioactive cesium and strontium from Hanford plutonium-production waste for Germany to use for testing of a repository for radioactive waste."

(And speaking generally, it's a type of work that's representative of closed nuclear fuel cycles: a type of work that'd you want to see a lot *more of*, if you want seriously to expand the nuclear fission economy. I'm no flavor of anti-nuclear; but let's not reflexively dismiss interesting discussions of technological risk—let's not fall into that polarization trap).

I think the poster is very clear that their objection is about how nuclear waste is handled, not where it came from.

The same government is responsible for managing the nuclear waste at both of them, and they’ve clearly demonstrated they are unwilling and/or unable to do so.

I don’t support giving the government any more nuclear waste to manage until it can finish what is already on its plate, so to speak.