Tri-Party Agreement
|
2010 Hanford cleanup deadlines being revised -- Seattle Times, April 1
|
Ken Niles, Oregon Department of Energy August 26, 2009 Lynn, I would like to take the opportunity to respond to your questions about whether the proposed new Tri-Party Agreement deadline adjustments are justified and the enforceability of these new milestones. Like everyone else, we were shocked two years ago when the Tri-Parties revealed the proposed delays for both tank waste retrieval and operation of the vitrification plant. After Oregon joined the litigation, we met with staff at the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) to talk through the assumptions and new milestones that are built into the new agreement. We looked especially hard at two things - the new proposed end dates and the schedule for tank waste retrieval. The bottom line is that while we don't like the dates, we don't believe it is technically possible to dramatically move them forward - at least not right now. The tank waste retrieval program is severely limited by lack of available double-shell tank space. While we would all like to see the waste removed from the aging single-shell tanks much sooner, there is a limit to the space available in the double-shell tanks. As we look back over the history of Hanford cleanup, one of the biggest mistakes many of us made was to support the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 1995 in deciding that Hanford did not need additional waste storage tanks. We collectively believed at the time that the costs for new tanks were exorbitant, and moreover, that the vitrification plant would be operating soon enough to relieve the space crunch. No one then imagined that we were still 25 years from having an operational vitrification facility. Had we known or even suspected that, I think all of us would have pushed for building new waste storage tanks and aggressively emptying the single-shell tanks. Building new tanks today is a step many of us are reluctant to endorse for the same reasons we were reluctant then - concerns about the added cost; about the effect that might have competing with current work underway at the site; and that it may only buy us a couple of years. It would likely be 2017 or later before new tanks could be approved, funded, designed and constructed. After that, waste still would have to be retrieved and moved into the new tanks; a difficult enough task on its own. Even with the new schedule the DOE will be very hard put to manage and maintain many simultaneous retrievals from the tanks. We are doubtful DOE could realistically manage more at the same time than is now planned. Throughout the production years, Hanford built new tanks in lieu of building facilities to properly treat the wastes. Once new tanks were built, the pressure to process the waste was reduced and the cycle restarted. Many of us are reluctant to repeat that history once again, deferring the problem to later, and potentially reducing the urgency to get to a final resolution for the tank waste problem. Yet, we are also mindful of the danger that more tanks may fail and leak while we wait. If we have another major delay in the start of the vitrification facilities, we will of course all once again realize we gambled badly and that we should have built more tanks. It is a tragic conundrum. However, the proposed TPA changes that are part of the proposed settlement do require DOE to develop contingency plans, including for the construction of new tanks if there are further delays in the vitrification facilities or other contingencies. This was added specifically to address this possibility. For tank waste retrieval, the new schedule calls for the 10 remaining tanks in the C Tank Farm to be retrieved no later than September 30, 2014. Waste will be retrieved from nine additional single-shell tanks by December 31, 2022. By then, the Consent Decree requires that Waste Treatment facilities be in full operation and DOE have in place the means to feed tank waste to the vitrification facilities so that they operate at a reasonable capacity. Available double-shell tank space should no longer be a limiting factor at this point. Between now and startup of the vitrification facilities, DOE must figure out what they need to do to assure that "feed" capacity. The DOE has proposed that as long as they are limited by a lack of available double-shell tank space that they keep tank retrievals at a slow pace to ensure that they maintain an experienced work force and so they can also work through new technical problems as they are discovered. They say that is a better alternative than filling the available double-shell tank space as quickly as possible, and then shutting down the retrieval program until after the Waste Treatment Plant is operating, only to have to start-up again with few experienced workers available. We also want to avoid the other mistake of the past such as concentrating the wastes in tanks to the point that solids precipitate and harden, or that flammable gases are generated that burp every now and again as happened in SY-101 - a whole other set of horribly difficult problems. After 2022, DOE will then have to retrieve waste from about 120 tanks over the following 18 years - six to seven tanks each year. Judging by the time it has taken to empty waste from the tanks, there will need to be new efficiencies and technological breakthroughs over the next decade or so to retrieve at that rate and make the new single shell tank retrieval end date of 2040. Again, it's not what we would like, but we agree that it does seem the best option available to us right now. One element of this new agreement that we really like is that all of these assumptions, and the technology limitations (or breakthroughs) will be re-assessed periodically throughout the next 30 years to see whether it may be possible to complete this work sooner. If so, the work and milestones will be adjusted. The same holds true for the Waste Treatment Plant. Looking at the amount of waste that can be processed daily and making a few assumptions about plant operating efficiencies and periodic down-time to replace melters and make repairs, the work won't be done until the mid 2040s. You can make other assumptions that might possibly move the schedule forward by a few years, but those assumptions aren't necessarily any better or more accurate. There is still considerable work to be done to resolve issues related to how much sodium must be added during pretreatment to divert aluminum from the high-level waste stream to the low-activity waste stream. Minimizing the amount of added sodium will reduce the duration of Waste Treatment Plant operations and reduce the quantity of vitrified low-activity waste that must be disposed on the Hanford Site. Perhaps there will be a breakthrough over the next few years dramatically reducing the volume of waste needing to be vitrified. If so, then at the next periodic review, the milestones and end date could be accelerated. For now, we can't assume that there will be major breakthroughs that will significantly shorten the waste treatment mission. So, 2047 does seem reasonable though we all work and hope for much better. You asked why the new proposed schedules are any different than the current schedules under the Tri-Party Agreement, which DOE has missed. Perhaps the most important feature of the proposed settlement agreement is that the schedule for critical activities over the next 12 years will be provided in a Consent Decree in federal court, with judicial oversight. These activities will set the cleanup on course: completing and operating the Waste Treatment Plant, and retrieving tank waste from 19 more single shell tanks, including an entire tank farm. We believe DOE will be extremely motivated to comply with the Consent Decree since it must answer directly to a court if it doesn't comply. We believe this will greatly enhance the likelihood of compliance for the next 10-plus years. Having a Consent Decree was effective in getting the free liquids removed from the single-shell tanks in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Beyond the Consent Decree, there are two changes to the Tri-Party Agreement that we believe will help ensure that the cleanup mission stays on track. The first is the effort I mentioned above that requires DOE and Ecology to continually re-evaluate whether it may be possible to complete tank retrievals and waste treatment sooner than the proposed milestone dates, and if so to negotiate new dates. This "System Plan" effort will require DOE to account for how every drop of tank waste is going to be retrieved and treated on schedule. At the same time, the System Plan effort is designed to look for ways to get the job done better and more quickly. This is a holistic joint planning exercise that has not existed at Hanford before. The second is a new Lifecycle Scope, Schedule, and Cost Report milestone. This milestone requires DOE to, for the first time in one place, account for all the actions necessary to complete the Hanford cleanup mission, with a detailed cost estimate. We expect this report to give us a complete understanding of the resources necessary for getting Hanford cleanup accomplished, which is critical to getting the job done.
August 12, 2009 We are extremely disappointed in this settlement, while feeling we have to praise that the Governors did continue to raise the need to bar USDOE from using Hanford as a national radioactive / mixed waste dump. However, they settled for mere words - a totally unenforceable statement in the upcoming EIS draft which any future Secretary of Energy could disregard. The public must insist that: • The bar on adding waste to Hanford be enforceable as part of the consent decree and TPA, and linked to USDOE emptying the Single Shell Tanks (not just startup of the WTP in 2019, even if it does not effectively work); • The deadlines for emptying Single Shell Tanks be reduced - with near-term deadlines to emptying 50 tanks by 2019. this is possible. Indeed, HAB advice and HOA Citizens' guides on the budget over the past two years have laid out technically solid proposals to empty five times as many tanks by 2019 as the states would accept under USDOE's budget based plan. This would allow the emptying of all tanks, and beginning of real cleanup work for the contamination under them, by 2030 (ten years faster). Pending advice by the HAB, approved by two committees just last week, seeks to speed up retrieval of SST Tank Wastes by use of wiped film evaporators to make room in the Double Shell Tanks. USDOE is investing in a trial of this during the next year with stimulus funds. It is ridiculous that WA State did not insist on use of this technology to allow more SSTs to be emptied, if the technology test works as expected. • Waste not be allowed to sit in leaky Single Shell Tanks for another thirty years. So long as waste is in those tanks, USDOE should be barred from adding more waste to Hanford (Clean-Up First!!!) This is pretty much a total roll over by WA and OR. The only thing which WA gets is a court decree - but, that is for milestones which are ridiculously unacceptable. The dates are exactly what USDOE sought - dates which Gov Gregoire had attacked as utterly unacceptable. So, putting them in an enforceable document is akin to saying that you can enforce a commitment for action whenever the moon is filled with Swiss cheese. The preferred alternative in an EIS for not using Hanford as a national radioactive waste dump would be a great step if it had the slightest enforceability. The settlement shows that we have moved WA State from telling us in 2003 that it would "do nothing" to end the use of unlined burial grounds or use of Hanford as a national radioactive waste dump, to WA State attempting to meet public opinion by seeking a bar on USDOE adding more waste to Hanford. This is NOT in the public interest as currently written without an enforceable bar on adding more waste and without schedules that are feasible, and it needs aggressive language for protecting the environment. These schedules fail to protect human health and the environment, which is the bottom line. Gerry Pollet, JD; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Comments on proposed settlement agreement at Hanford August 12, 2009
A settlement agreement between the State of Washington and the U.S. Department of Energy was announced on August 11, 2009 that resolves a lawsuit filed by the State of Washington in November 2008. The lawsuit was filed after it became clear that the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) deadlines were not going to be met by DOE. These include significant delays and budget overruns with the Waste Treatment Plant (the vitrification plant), delays in retrieving wastes from single-shell tank (to a budget of retrieving one tank per year), and violation of environmental laws and regulations.
Most of Hanford's 53 million gallons of high-level nuclear waste are slated for treatment at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). These wastes are currently stored in about 170 underground storage tanks that were built decades ago. One third of the tanks have already leaked, and they are all beyond their design life.
The settlement includes a proposed Consent Decree which contains milestones and dates for the construction and commissioning of the WTP and the continued retrieval of single-shell tanks at Hanford. The Consent Decree will be signed and officially submitted after a 45-day public comment period that ends of November 9, 2009. Details include:
· Milestones for the WTP which require DOE to hot-start the WTP by 2019 and achieve initial plant operations by 2022. Initial startup of WTP was to begin in 2009, with plant operations active by 2011. • The milestones for tank waste retrieval include completing the retrieval of waste from all single-shell tanks by 2040, closing all of Hanford's single-shell tank farms by 2043, and the completion of tank waste treatment by 2047. A prior agreement required the completion of tank waste retrieval and treatment by 2028. • The DOE agreed to extend the existing moratorium on the importation of offsite waste to Hanford for disposal at least until the WTP begins operations, projected to be in 2019. The importation and disposal ban does not include wastes that go to the commercial low-level rad waste facility at Hanford (the compact site known as US Ecology landfill), and naval nuclear wastes, i.e., the hulls from decommissioned nuclear subs. • The DOE will also prepare a report setting forth the lifecycle scope, schedule and cost for completion of the Hanford Site cleanup mission. "The report shall reflect all of those actions necessary for the DOE to fully meet all applicable environmental obligations, including those under the TPA. The first scope, schedule and cost report will be delivered no sooner than 9 months after the approval of the milestone, and the report will be submitted annually by January thereafter." • New milestones were established concerning the remediation of groundwater on the Hanford Site. This package includes milestones to contain key contaminants adjacent to the Columbia River including chromium and strontium. In addition, the package contains milestones to increase groundwater treatment at the Hanford Site to remediate contaminated groundwater near the Columbia River and the central portion of the Hanford Site.
The Good:
This agreement gives more power to the State of Washington to enforce the Tri-Party Agreement in federal court, a key ingredient missing, in part, in the old agreement. Oddly, though, the State did convert the tank waste retrieval milestones into a consent decree after litigation was filed in the late 1980's. There is no mention of this in the current agreement. Presumably, the ability to enforce provisions of the TPA in federal court will motivate future Administrations to provide sufficient funds to meet the cleanup milestones. There seems to be enough detail and breakdown in the agreement to provide meaningful milestones to assure a timely intervention whenever a delay is proposed. However, it appears that the consent decree signed in the year 2000 was insufficient to hold DOE accountable for tank cleanup milestones. It remains to be seen how this agreement will be different.
The Agreement also provides for periodic technology reviews (every three years) that would examine whether cleanup at Hanford might be achieved faster or more effectively.
The extension of the off-site waste importation and disposal ban is good, although it is only a delay until the WTP begins operations. This might not be for ten years at this point. This provision operates through requiring the DOE to issue the Tank Waste Closure and Waste Management EIS by November 2009, and within that EIS to identify the preferred alternative of not designating Hanford to receive offsite waste. See language in endnote.[i]
The DOE continues to insist that it will "accelerate cleanup" and will shrink the Hanford Site to a 75-square mile area that includes the old reprocessing plants and the tank farms, by cleaning up the river corridor and other areas outside the 200 Area by 2015. Many remain skeptical that this can be accomplished to a meaningful degree in that time frame.
The Bad:
This Agreement blesses the long delays in starting a vit plant and retrieving and treating tank wastes. Many of these tanks have already failed. The integrity of all the single-shell tanks is suspect. Under this agreement, these tanks are expected to hold up for another 30 or 40 years. The tanks were designed to last for 20 years, and most of them were built in the 40's and 50's.
Little is being said or done about the real underlying problem at Hanford - poor management by DOE, lack of oversight and accountability for contractors who have substantially benefited from taxpayer handouts while making little progress in cleanup, and the ongoing lack of a safety culture that will protect workers, the public and the environment from the cleanup itself.
This new agreement is simply another set of promises. We've heard it before. In 2000, the State of Washington entered into a consent decree on single-shell tank retrieval to much fanfare. Here is Governor Gary Locke's statement at the time:
"This agreement ensures the work will continue - on schedule - no matter who serves as governor of Washington or president of the United States," Locke said. "This a major change in the way the cleanup business is conducted at Hanford."
Locke continued, "Secretary Richardson assures us that the vitrification plant will be up and running in 2007, and that must be our focus." - May 10, 2000
It was also disappointing not to get a lasting and meaningful commitment to not turn Hanford into a national repository for offsite mixed nuclear waste - which has long been the scheme of the DOE.
These are my initial comments on the news of the settlement. I will have more comments as I get a chance to study the agreement in more detail.
- Tom Carpenter |