Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Barry Goren and Joan Burton some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    OK, Hanford: Time to start listening to whistleblowers

    Another high-level Hanford official has quit, after the Department of Energy ignored a memo he sent warning about potential meltdowns at the nuclear ranch's waste treatment facility, currently under construction.
    A Department of Energy warning sign at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation

    A Department of Energy warning sign at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Great Beyond (Tony Case)/Flickr

    The B reactor complex, operating in the 1940s, was the earliest facility to turn out large amounts of waste at Hanford.

    The B reactor complex, operating in the 1940s, was the earliest facility to turn out large amounts of waste at Hanford. U.S. Department of Energy/Wikimedia Commons

    The Department of Energy ignored a December memo by a top engineer, urging that the agency stop construction of a nuclear waste processing complex at Hanford due to safety concerns. The whistleblower, Gary Brunson, was the director of the U.S. Department of Energy's engineering division for the glassification complex currently under construction. He resigned earlier this month, just before former Gov. Chris Gregoire and U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu agreed to ramp up work on the slowed-down project. 

    Brunson's memo, released Wednesday by watchdog organization Hanford Challenge, alleged that the project faces significant quality control problems, including temperatures high enough to corrode tanks filled with nuclear waste, inadequate safety margins in some designs by lead contractor Bechtel National Inc. and other "significant perfomance issues."

    "This memorandum recommends, based upon a compelling body of objective evidence demonstrating indeterminate quality throughout the [glassification] facilities, that all activities affecting engineering design, nuclear safety and construction and installation [at the Hanford complex] be stopped to avoid further nuclear safety compromises and substantial rework," Brunson wrote.

    Brunson is the latest in a string of senior Hanford supervisors who have complained that the project's engineering shortcomings have not been sufficiently addressed. Crosscut has published stories on earlier concerns about engineering questions, with the most in-depth last May. Three senior supervisors claim they have been retaliated against because they raised engineering concerns that would slow down the project's schedule.

    Hanford Challenge, a watchdog organization, released the memo on Wednesday. "The DOE has pledged to address its broken safety culture, which has stifled the reporting of concerns and made examples of high-profile managers who dared speak out. Brunson's departure, along with his memo calling for work suspension at the facility, is yet another example of the failure of DOE to assure that safety concerns are adequately addressed. This project is currently the only plan for dealing with high-level nuclear waste stored at Hanford," said Tom Carpenter, director of Hanford Challenge.

    Hanford is arguably the most radioactive and chemically contaminated site in the Western Hemisphere. Its worst problem is the 53 million gallons of highly radioactive waste currently stored in 177 leak-prone underground tanks. Hanford's master plan is to build a complex to convert a major portion of the sludges and fluids into benign glass to be stored at a yet-to-be-determined location.

    The complex will consist of a "pretreatment plant" to convert a mixture of sludges, liquids and gunk into fluids of specific physical and chemical specifications. These fluids will be sent to one of two Hanford glassification plants. One would glassify highly radioactive wastes, while the other would glassify wastes with lower radioactivity.

    When the project began in the 1990s, its cost was estimated at $4 billion, with glassification set to begin in 2001. Today the price tag is up to $12.2 billion with a 2019 start date. Numerous major engineering questions have sprouted in recent years -- particularly with regard to the pretreatment plant, a complicated series of pipes and mixing tanks.

    The Federal Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is a governmental agency tasked with providing "recommendations and advice to the President and the Secretary of Energy regarding public health and safety issues at Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities." FDNFSB agrees with many concerns raised by the whistleblowing Hanford supervisors. Among those concerns are whether radioactive wastes will corrode tanks inside the pretreatment building, whether radioactive leaks or spraying mists will occur within that building, whether uncontrolled bursts of radiation will occur, whether hydrogen gases could cause flames or explosions that could damage pipes and tanks, and whether Hanford project managers and scientists understand the waste's chemistry enough to make sure equipment is up to snuff.

    Looming over these questions is the fact that all three glassification buildings will be too radioactive for anyone to actually enter. All repairs and modifications will have to be made by remote control.

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Thu, Jan 17, 7 p.m. Inappropriate

    I'm more worried about Hanford then climate change. We have to live 241,000 years with active plutonium. A lot can happen in that amount of time and most of it would be bad if not outright disastrous. Of course we'll do something at the last minutes and it'll be a band-aid approach and it won't stop the bleeding.


    Posted Fri, Jan 18, 10:44 a.m. Inappropriate

    Last week I spoke with a friend who works at EPA HQs in DC. Now former Governor Chris Gregoire's name is floating around among staff there as a potential new boss. Let's hope the rumors are correct and that she is appointed and accepts. And of course that she wouldn't have to cave on clean up and the ability to nix any new nuclear storage (from elsewhere) coming to Hanford.


    Posted Mon, Jan 21, 9:16 p.m. Inappropriate

    "Have to cave" ?

    No one has to "cave".

    Posted Fri, Jan 18, 12:53 p.m. Inappropriate

    Hanford is a metaphor for everything wonderful about modern America. I still think the practical approach would be to sink a deep aquitard barrier between Hanford and the river and just walk away. Let that sucker eat its way down into the Earth's core. The geothermal heat could then be captured and recirculated to Soap Lake, turning it into a year-round bubble bath spa and giving a badly needed boost to a seasonally challenged local economy. All that left over glass could be used to construct a translucent bubble over the Tri-Cities, providing both protection from fugitive radiation and world-class hot house tomatoes. It would still be a bit of an engineering challenge, but I'm sure Bechtel is up for it.


    Posted Mon, Jan 21, 9:15 p.m. Inappropriate

    Engineers or Bureaucrats? Bureaucrats or Politicians?

    Hmmmm. When a top engineer quits, after writing a whistleblower complaint, and no one listens, can the next disaster be far behind?

    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »