|
Tank waste construction schedule I wrote the following comments to the DOE and Washington Dept. of Ecology on the proposed changes to the Tri-Party Agreement on the Tank Waste Construction Schedule: We have followed the tank waste issues at Hanford extensively over the past 10 years. It is of deepest concern to our organization that we get a credible, workable tank waste treatment facility running successfully at Hanford. We commend the agencies for recovering from the BNFL debacle faster than imagined, but are concerned over any further delays. We also applaud Washington Department of Ecology for imposing fines on the DOE and requiring the Recovery Plan in question. Without a hard line being held by regulators there is no reason to trust that the DOE will hold itself accountable to the public for protecting public/environmental health. We are concerned about the "fast track" approach adopted in the recovery plan, thus urge tight regulatory oversight by Ecology and Washington Department of Health when applicable. We expect to be informed at the outset of any difficulties and further delays. This is the only way to garner public trust and support. Our organization has asked the Hanford Advisory Board's Tank Waste Committee to implement a 2 to 3 month update (status report) of programmatic and technical risks being scrutinized by the agencies and other interested parties (i.e., Oregon Office of Energy) in order to avoid public surprises like the demise of the BNFL privatization contract. Immediate honesty is the only way to garner public support and trust. We know that the permitting process coupled with the degree of design is a pressing issue right now. We also understand Bechtel is pushing for an early start of construction to make up time and acquire fee. We urge that safety on all or any levels is not compromised. Safety supersedes early start of construction. We are also concerned about DOE Headquarter's true commitment to adequate levels of cleanup with the vitrification facility. We do not wish for any impediments to or compromise of cleanup due to change of philosophy (steam reforming, pie-in-the-sky increase of treatment tenfold, as stated in the Performance Management Plan,May 2002, etc.) or lack of budget. We urge the regulators to hold the US government's feet to the fire. We do not want treatment plans eroded. We look forward to a response to our concerns and assurances from you that the TPA will be honored and full public process will be adhered to. Sincerely, |