Poor Maintenance Found to Be Factor in Incidents at Repository
Kenneth Fletcher
WC Monitor
5/16/2014
With the Department of Energy and Nuclear Waste Partnership, the managing contractor for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, coming under heavy criticism for inadequate maintenance at WIPP, documents obtained by WC Monitor through a Freedom of Information Act request show that cost estimates for key maintenance activities at the site dropped significantly in Fiscal Year 2013 when compared to previous years. Money spent on maintenance in four areas stood at about $8 million total in FY’13 when compared to $10.2 million to $10.6 million in FY’09 to FY’11 and $10 million in FY’12, according to activity based cost estimate details from WIPP managing contractor Nuclear Waste Partnership and the site’s previous managing contractor, Washington TRU Solutions. That includes maintenance costs for surface mechanical, surface electrical, instruments and control maintenance and mine maintenance. NWP did not respond to a request for comment on the documents this week.
Poor maintenance of a truck used to haul mined salt was found to be a key factor in a Feb. 5 fire in the underground started by the vehicle—combustible fluids built up on the vehicle due to inadequate inspections and preventative maintenance, a Department of Energy Accident Investigation Board found. That fire shut down work in the underground in the week leading up to the Feb. 14 radiation release. While the source of the release is still being investigated, an investigation found that a thoroughly tested, well-maintained HEPA filter capable exhaust ventilation system could have helped prevent the aboveground release of radiation. In FY ‘13 cost estimates for mine maintenance stood at about $3.1 million, compared to $4.3 million in FY’11 and $3.9 million in FY’12.
The Accident Investigation Board found: “The current culture at NWP is such that due consideration for prioritization of maintenance of equipment is not given unless there is an immediate impact on the waste emplacement processes,” the report states. Fee earned for NWP hinges on waste processed, not performance of maintenance. In late March, DOE cleanup chief Dave Huizenga said that WIPP maintenance is the contractor’s responsibility. “It’s in the contracts, the money is there for this work to be done and it’s the contractor’s responsibility to make sure that they are doing it,” he told WC Monitor. But the investigation released in April also concluded that: “DOE HQ management has failed to ensure that adequate resources, full time employees, technical expertise, travel money, adequate budget, etc., are provided to support the WIPP project.”
DOE Asks For Complex-Wide Maintenance Review
In response to the recent incidents at WIPP, last month the Department’s Office of Environmental Management asked contractors and site field offices across the complex to perform a review of deferred maintenance. “One of the early lessons learned from the recent Waste Isolation Pilot Plant events is that we must not accept, tolerate or otherwise justify out of service safety-related equipment,” states an April 16 memo from Huizenga. “Therefore, I am directing that each site in the EM complex complete and report to me, within 60 days, an initial extent of condition review assessing whether the site has applied sufficient resources to system and equipment maintenance, maintaining up to date configuration control, and making necessary upgrades to support system infrastructure.”
