In a move that could lead to cost and schedule impacts, Washington state environmental regulators are launching a thorough review of the permit for the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. The review was prompted by the number of “technical issues,” many of which are long-standing, that remain to be resolved at the WTP, such as concerns over the pulse jet mixers to be used in the plant’s vessels and erosion/corrosion concerns, according to an Aug. 30 letter from Ecology Nuclear Waste Program Manager Jane Hedges, a copy of which Weapons Complex Mornitor obtained late last week. “These issues are under scrutiny, and they concern systems regulated under the WTP permit. Therefore we question the validity of the system documentation in the WTP permit,” Hedges wrote to DOE Office of River Protection Manager Kevin Smith and Bechtel National WTP Project Director Peggy McCullough.
Based on the results of the review, Ecology may place “administrative holds” on portions of the WTP permit that are in question, according to the letter. “If Ecology places a design document, design drawing, system or section of the WTP Permit on administrative hold, BNI may not proceed with construction of that portion of the WTP facility. Ecology will not approve installation or any operating conditions for that portion of the permitted unit,” Hedges wrote. “To remove the administrative hold, USDOE-ORP and BNI must provide updated permit documentation for Ecology’s review and approval.”
The schedule for completing the review will be based on “how well the technical issues are resolved and how long that will take,” Ecology WTP Project Manager Dan McDonald told Weapons Complex Monitor late last week. “What we’re undertaking is in an exercise in going through the permit, and where we know that design changes are in the offing, we’re going to essentially mark … [them] so that we can maintain currency of knowledge of what’s in the permit,” McDonald said. “Given that in a lot of cases we don’t have specific information on the permit changes that will result or could result, we don’t want to proceed with certain construction elements and then have to go back and redo or reconstruct.” He added, “We do not believe they’re not in compliance. We’re not in a position to even consider enforcement at this time. Given the fluidity of the technical issues … our primary goal here is to ensure that what’s in the permit accurately reflects what’s in the field.” The DOE Office of River Protection did not respond to requests for comment.
