State, DOE Can’t Reach Agreement on Modification
Staff Reports
WC Monitor
4/25/2014
Washington state has triggered a formal dispute resolution process for Hanford’s court-enforced consent decree following the Department of Energy’s rejection late last week of the state’s proposal for new deadlines and other requirements. State attorneys sent a brief letter April 23 to the U.S. Department of Justice to initiate 40-days of good faith negotiation, as required under the 2010 consent decree. If the state and federal governments cannot reach agreement, the state may then return to federal court to request an order directing DOE to meet the requirements of the state’s plan. “We will continue to use the legal tools at our disposal to force the federal government to accept a plan that increases accountability, protects the environment and public, and reduces further delays,” said state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. DOE also proposed a plan to amend the consent decree, which the state rejected late last week. A DOE spokesman said April 23 that it remains committed to working with the state in the hope of arriving at a mutually acceptable amendment to the consent decree.
DOE told Washington state in 2013 it is at risk of missing most of the remaining deadlines in the consent decree. “We have been disappointed with the federal government’s lack of commitment to its responsibility to clean up Hanford,” Ferguson said. There has been progress by DOE in proposing creative ways to move forward with some cleanup at Hanford, said Governor Jay Inslee (D). But “we need to see substantial improvement in order to ensure that our agreed-upon deadlines for waste removal and treatment are met,” he said.
DOE Says State Proposal Doesn’t Account for Tech. Issues
The state proposed a lengthy and detailed list of deadlines and requirements to ensure that all tank waste is treated for disposal no later than 2047, as required under the Tri-Party Agreement. The state agreed with DOE’s proposal to start treating waste as soon as possible by building a new facility, the Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System, to prepare waste to be fed directly to the Waste Treatment Plant’s Low Activity Waste Facility, bypassing the Pretreatment Facility, where technical issues have halted construction. The state also likes DOE’s proposal to construct a Tank Waste Characterization and Staging Facility, which could resolve some of the vitrification plant’s technical issues. However, the state has objected to DOE’s proposal to initially set new milestones primarily for some tank waste retrieval and low-activity waste treatment, but to delay setting other milestones until technical issues are resolved and it has more certainty in how work will be done. DOE’s proposal “lacks specificity, accountability and enforceability,” the state said.
DOE announced its rejection of the state proposal at the end of business last week. The state’s proposal did not adequately account for the realities of the resolution of technical issues at the vitrification plant, project management requirements and budget constraints, DOE said in a statement. The state’s requirements included having the Low Activity Waste Facility operating in 2019 and having 10 percent of the low activity radioactive waste turned into a stable glass form for disposal by 2022. It would require the High-Level Waste Facility to begin operating in 2026 and the Pretreatment Facility to begin operating in 2028. The process to resolve technical issues is complex, “and it evolves as more information is learned and the problems are further defined, refined, and solved,” the Department of Justice said in a letter to the state. But the state’s proposed milestones for startup of the plant are premised on fixed-date resolution of all technical issues, the letter said.
DOE Also Warns of State Proposal’s Costs
The state’s proposal ignores the historical funding profile appropriated by Congress for the DOE Office of River Protection, the Department’s letter said. Costs in the state proposal would appear to at least double historically appropriated funding in most years, it said. Federal budget pressures would require significant funding to be diverted from other sites within DOE’s Office of Environmental Management complex, the letter said. The federal government also concluded that the state’s proposal does not allow enough time for the Low Activity Waste Pretreatment Facility to be designed, constructed and commissioned to allow the vit plant’s Low Activity Waste Facility to begin treating waste.
The state’s proposed amendment also would require up to eight new double-shell tanks to be built, require additional liquid waste to be emptied from single-shell tanks and require more interim barriers to be built over underground tanks. Building new tanks would divert resources from operation of the vitrification plant, the letter said. The interim barriers would increase the difficulty and delay completion of single-shell tank retrievals, and it is not clear that barriers large enough to extend 100 feet beyond any contamination could be effectively designed, the letter said. Those and other proposed new milestones are outside the scope of the original consent decree, the Department of Justice said. They would extend the scope well beyond the original consent decree that covered milestones for initial operation of the vit plant and retrieval of waste from 19 tanks, it said. Some requirements also would supersede DOE’s ability to make decisions as provided in the Tri-Party Agreement, the letter said. And some appear to exert state regulatory authority over matters of nuclear safety that federal law gives responsibility for to the federal government, the Department of Justice said.
Local Communities Urge State to Drop New Tanks Proposal
Earlier this week, Hanford Communities, a coalition of Hanford-area local governments, called on the Washington governor to drop the state’s demand that eight more double-shell tanks be built. The project would unnecessarily divert money from a plan to start treating Hanford’s waste as soon as possible, Hanford Communities said in a letter sent to the governor and Attorney General Ferguson. “The state’s prescriptive and rigid stance on this issue sets a bad precedent in the collaborative relationship between the state and the federal government,” the letter said. But the state believies that the administration is obligated to request money for all legally required Hanford cleanup, said Jane Hedges, the director of the state Department of Ecology’s Nuclear Waste Program. If Congress cannot provide enough money, the state will take that into consideration, but the assumption should not be made that enough money for all important cleanup work cannot be obtained, she said.
Significant new storage capacity will be included as part of the two new facilities DOE is planning to build to prepare waste for the vitrification plant, Hanford Communities said. Hedges said the state is willing to look at any storage options, but DOE does not have specific information about those facilities and the form and size of their tanks. DOE has estimated the cost of building eight new storage tanks to nuclear standards at $800 million.
Could New Tanks Delay Other Work?
Hanford Communities said in the letter that it understood the state’s frustration at the lack of progress in developing a permanent solution for Hanford tank waste. Part of the issue is Congressional funding levels, it said. “The state needs to realize that we are in a tight budget situation with competing needs within DOE and across the country,” the letter said. Funding for Hanford already has decreased the point of concern, the letter said. If money for new tanks were to be taken from the DOE Richland Operations Office, high risk cleanup projects would be delayed, the letter said. Those projects include the 618-10 and 618-11 Burial Ground, the Plutonium Finishing Plant and removal of cesium and strontium capsules from underwater storage at the Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility, the letter said.
Part of the state’s push to build more storage tanks comes from a leak discovered within the walls of double-shell Tank AY-102. In addition, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has raised concerns about the condition of Hanford’s 27 other double-shell tanks after reading evaluations of their construction. But Hanford Communities said that integrity reports show the 27 other double-shell tanks are in relatively stable condition and there is strong confidence they would be able to contain leaks from their inner shells. “In this instance, AY-102 did exactly as it was designed to do, contain leaks from its first shell,” the letter said. It is important that the state look at Hanford cleanup as a whole, not just at the tank work that falls under the consent decree, Hanford Communities said.
Like the Tri-City Development Council, Hanford Communities also believes that returning to court over the consent decree would harm Hanford cleanup, the letter said. TRIDEC sent a letter to the governor and attorney general early last week, with broader concerns about the state’s proposal. After recent discussions with U.S. senators and representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, TRIDEC was convinced that the Hanford budget would not be increased to pay for new consent decree requirements. Without that funding, the state’s proposal could take away money from projects that pose a more immediate risk to the public and environment, TRIDEC said. The state’s intent is not to take money away from work that TRIDEC listed in its letter as important to complete, Hedges said. Those projects also are important to the state, she said.
