Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to John Backes and Gretchen Sorensen some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Powerful congressman demands Hanford answers

    Rep. Ed Markey wants to know whether one facility is needed. And he cites nuclear safety issues and cost concerns around unresolved technical questions to request a halt in some work.
    Plans call for use of this type of tank to receive melted wastes at Hanford's glassification complex.

    Plans call for use of this type of tank to receive melted wastes at Hanford's glassification complex. John Stang

    Work on Hanford's glassification plant (2010)

    Work on Hanford's glassification plant (2010) John Stang

    Why build a huge, expensive chemical facility at Hanford, if the site can begin glassifying radioactive wastes without it?

    That's one question posed by U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., to the U.S. Department of Energy after former Gov. Chris Gregoire and U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently agreed to ramp up stalled work on a $13 billion waste glassification complex while looking at bypassing the "pretreatment" portion of the plant.

    Last Friday, Markey wrote to Chu: "I am ... alarmed by the recent announcement that (DOE) might attempt to simply bypass the most problematic so-called 'pretreatment facility' entirely, and instead feed waste directly to the high and low-level waste treatment facilities without first separating the types of wastes."

    Markey also suggested "in the strongest possible terms" that work should be stopped on the glassification complex pending resolution of design questions. His letter cited a federal General Accounting Office report, also released Friday, that recommended that work most of the glassification complex — including the pretreatment facility — be stopped until numerous design problems are fixed. The GAO's worries are the same as voiced by another federal oversight body, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

    DOE officials weren't able to provide answers Monday on the technical feasibility of bypassing pretreatment.

    Friday's GAO report echoed stop-work recommendations in a Dec. 19, 2012, memo by Gary Brunson, who used to be DOE's engineering division director for the glassification complex. He resigned earlier this month, just before Gregoire and Chu made their announcement.

    And Brunson's memo, also cited by Markey, highlighted the same design shortcomings that at least three ranking Hanford supervisors raised about the project — with all three alleging they suffered retaliation for pushing those concerns. Markey's letter said he is interested in the retaliation allegations.

    The GAO report said, "DOE's (waste treatment) project has not been a well-planned, well-managed, or well-executed major capital construction project."

    DOE is working to comply with the GAO's recommendations, said a Nov. 30, 2012 DOE letter replying to a draft of the GAO report. The DOE letter was sent almost three week prior to Brunson's memo to stop work and about six weeks prior to Chu and Gregoire announcing the restart.

    "Since mid-July, (Chu) has been actively engaged in the development of a new approach to managing the (glassification project), and has been working with a personally handpicked group of independent, highly capable subject matter experts ... to resolve long-standing technical issues," DOE's letter said.

    DOE's letter later said: "We also acknowledge the existence of a cultural challenge on the (waste treatment) project wherein employees were reluctant to raise safety concerns because of an overriding perception that would not be addressed in an aggressive and timely manner. We are working ... to change and improve the safety culture at (the project)."

    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.

    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. Glassification will be done by mixing wastes and glass flakes in extremely hot melters.

    One tricky part of this entire process is the fact the 53 million gallons of wastes are mish-mashes of numerous chemical sludges, crusts and gunk that vary from tank to tank. The high-level and low-level waste-treatment plants will only be able to glassify wastes that meet specific chemical and physical conditions entering into each.

    The "pretreatment facility" is a building full of pipes, mixing tanks and air jets that will convert the tank wastes into substances that the two glassification plants will accept. It has been plagued with numerous engineering design problems and controversies, which Crosscut has covered extensively.

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


    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »