Admin. Set to Submit Proposal to Modify 2010 Consent Decree By End of Month
Mike Nartker
WC Monitor
2/14/2014
Washington state officials are calling on the Obama Administration to submit a new plan for addressing Hanford’s tank waste that is “aggressive but realistic” when it submits a proposal to amend a 2010 consent decree that helps govern the cleanup of Hanford, expected by the end of this month. “For a proposal to be viable, it must contain the specificity, detail and comprehensiveness which has thus far not been provided,” Washington Governor Jay Inslee (D) and state Attorney General Robert Ferguson wrote in a Feb. 11 letter to Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. “In sum, for an amendment proposal to be acceptable to the State, it must comprehensively address all Consent Decree and TPA [Tri-Party Agreement] requirements related to tank waste retrieval and treatment including the out-year life cycle requirements,” Inslee and Ferguson wrote, adding, “It must be a path that gives the State confidence that tank waste retrieval will be completed as soon as possible.”
The consent decree was established to resolve a lawsuit Washington state brought against DOE in 2008 over delays in completing cleanup activities at Hanford. The consent decree includes milestones tied to retrieval of waste from Hanford’s single-shell tanks and milestones related to making process in constructing and beginning operation of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. However, DOE has warned three times—once in November 2011 and twice last year—that it was at risk of missing milestones in the consent decree. Most recently, DOE warned in October that it was at “serious risk” of missing three milestones related to the WTP’s Analytical Laboratory and Low Activity Waste Facility, bringing to 14 the total number of WTP-related milestones in the consent decree DOE has warned it may not meet (WC Monitor, Vol. 24 No. 40). “Since receiving the first notice of schedule risk, Washington State officials consistently communicated to Energy that we expect a recovery plan that addresses the developments that gave rise to the notice letters,” Inslee and Ferguson wrote.
Last fall, in response to delays in completing the Hanford vit plant, DOE unveiled what it called a new “framework” that outlined a three-phase approach for addressing Hanford’s tank waste, the first phase of which would involve the creation of an interim pretreatment capability to direct feed waste into the WTP LAW Facility and allow it to begin operation while the technical issues at the plant’s Pretreatment and High-Level Waste facilities are resolved. The second phase would involve completing and directly feeding the HLW Facility, followed by completing the Pretreatment Facility and achieving integrated plant operations (WC Monitor, Vol. 24 No. 38). The framework has come under criticism, though, for a lack of details—criticism echoed by Inslee and Ferguson in their letter this week (WC Monitor, Vol. 24 Nos. 49&50). “Despite concerned efforts on our part, your agencies have not provided the details needed to assess the Framework or the effect that implementation of the Framework would have on all WTP and retrieval requirements set forth in the Consent Decree and TPA. Energy has not provided a definitive proposed path forward for Hanford cleanup,” they wrote. DOE did not respond to requests for comment on the letter this week.
