Hanford Challenge

Press Release

Continued

Hanford Challenge supports holding the Waste Treatment Plant to the same standards as commercial nuclear facilities, which are given license to operate by the NRC only after thorough review of regulatory practices.  “There are going to be millions of gallons of hazardous radioactive liquid pumped through this facility and subjected to extremely high temperatures,” says Carpenter.  “We need to know exactly what is going to happen when this facility is switched on.  What we want to avoid is having the start of operations be the start of a whole new set of contamination problems.  The review from an outside party with experience in these matters is a welcome start.”

The public is welcome to attend the meeting, which will include an introduction to the NRC’s plans for reviewing practices at WTP followed by over two hours of public questions and comment.

Fact Sheet and Backgrounder

Background

 The Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) is one of the largest and most expensive environmental remediation projects in the world. Located at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford site in southeastern Washington State, the WTP is being built to mix high-level radioactive waste from the Hanford Tank Farms with glass to make it more stable for storage and ultimate disposal, a process called vitrification.

 In 2000, the DOE awarded Bechtel National, Inc. a $4.3 billion, 11 year contract to construct and design a plant to treat the 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous waste currently held in the underground tanks.  In 2008, the estimate to complete the project is $12.2 billion.

 Ideally, vitrification will stabilize the waste to prevent it from causing chemical or nuclear reactions, but the glass will remain extremely toxic and highly radioactive.  The “low activity” portion of the waste will be buried at Hanford in shallow land burial, while the “high activity” portion will ultimately be disposed of in a deep geological repository.

 Engineering errors, cost overruns and schedule delays have caused serious concerns for the viability, reliability, and safety of the WTP.  The programmatic breakdown in nuclear safety and quality systems at the WTP project have brought local and national media attention, as well as increased public and Congressional interest.  Congress has expressed doubts over future funding of the WTP.

 As part of the spending bill for FY 2008 Congress ordered a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review of the regulatory processes of the Department of Energy for the Hanford Waste Treatment plant. 

 The NRC is an independent regulatory agency that is separate from the Department of Energy. The NRC regulates commercial nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities and nuclear materials. Unless expressly authorized by statute, the NRC does not have authority to license or otherwise regulate DOE facilities and currently has no authority over activities at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant.

 From 1995- 2000 the NRC provided assistance to DOE on the design of the Waste Treatment Plant, with a potential transition to NRC regulatory authority at a future time. However, by 2001 the DOE terminated the privatization approach, and went to a self regulating system with the DOE and the Washington State Department of Ecology providing the only legal oversight. 

What are some of the biggest challenges facing the WTP?

1. Seismic (earthquake) movement underestimated
2. Mismanagement resulting in poor quality, cost overruns and safety lapses
3.  “Chilled atmosphere” for reporting safety concerns
4. Hydrogen gas buildup issues
5. Quality Assurance breakdowns
6.  Potential for Catastrophic Accident
7. Urgency for Waste Tank Cleanup

Have these issues been addressed?

 DOE has apparently made progress on resolving the seismic issues, resulting in design changes that took over a year and a half to accomplish.  It is hard to tell how much progress the contractor has made on resolving the other issues.  Disturbingly, Bechtel has twice been fined, once in 2006 and most recently in the summer of 2007, for failing to maintain an adequate nuclear safety culture.

 
What role should the NRC play at Hanford, and why?

 After three and a half years of safety oversight at the WTP, the NRC 2001 closeout report (NUREG 1747) stated that DOE contractors consistently downplayed the severity of potential accidents. In this report, the NRC estimated that the overall unmitigated risk of major radiological and chemical accidents at Hanford’s high-level waste operations was at the astronomical risk factor of 2.4% per year of operation, which translates to a cumulative risk factor of a 50-50 chance of an accident over 28 years of operation. According to NRC more than two-dozen significant safety issues and 50 specific topics remained unresolved in 2001. The NRC warned “few tests appear to be planned to verify safety parameters prior to construction.”  

 Hanford Challenge believes that the NRC should have a presence at the Waste Treatment Plant and Hanford Tank Farms sufficient to conduct safety oversight over the design, construction and operation of these facilities to reduce the risks to public and worker health and safety for the present and into the future.  The Waste Treatment Plant should not be allowed to operate without NRC’s informed stamp of approval. 

 Further, the NRC’s oversight should extend to the operation of the Hanford tank farm complex, which has been plagued by accidents and poor procedure compliance.  The tanks also pose considerable risks involving tank integrity issues, chemical reactions, potential fire and explosion risks, and worker health and safety lapses.

 
What does GAO have to say about oversight?

Gene Aloise, Director of Natural Resources and the Environment for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified in an April, 2006 Congressional hearing:

• “By just about any measure, the Hanford waste treatment project is in disarray, as evidenced by ever-increasing cost estimates, construction delays, and more recently, safety concerns. In our view, what is happening is uncharacteristic of a well-planned and well-managed construction project. “
• “Of great concern to us is the fact that many nuclear safety and other technical problems have occurred on the project. We believe that it is imperative that Bechtel and DOE discover any and all safety problems and immediately address them.
• “ In going forward, it is unclear whether DOE plans to continue using a fast-track approach that we have found is inappropriate for this unique, complex nuclear facility. We believe that DOE needs to follow nuclear industry construction guidelines and take a more conservative approach to design and construction activities that avoids carrying out these activities concurrently.“

Why should the public care?

As the largest, first-of-a-kind process handling large volumes of ultra-hazardous materials, safety risks are compounded by inadequate waste characterization data and a lack of processing experience with actual wastes. Given these knowledge gaps and risk assumptions, design and construction decisions require strong elements of conservatism to envelope major uncertainties. Conservative parameters may overestimate risks, but result in a high margin of safety and public confidence.

Given the large risks involved, Congress should authorize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license the construction and operation of the Hanford vitrification plant; and certify the safety of stored high-level radioactive wastes.

NRC oversight would lead to a better design and therefore better integrity of the plant.  The owner-operator should not be self-regulating on a project of this magnitude.