Hanford Frequently Asked Questions

1) What is the biggest threat to health and safety at Hanford?

2) Why is it so important to clean up Hanford?

3) Who is responsible for cleaning up the Hanford site?

4) What is the greatest danger at Hanford?

5) Why do further delays pose a problem?

6) Why is this churn such a problem?

7) How can the U.S. government make better progress at Hanford?

8) What is happening to ensure the cleanup at Hanford stays on schedule?

9) What about design/build, or fast-tracking? Is this a good idea?

10) What about construction mistakes?

11) What about earthquake risks?

1) What is the biggest threat to health and safety at Hanford?: The greatest single health and safety risk at Hanford is 53 million gallons of highly radioactive waste -- much of it sitting in obsolete, leak-prone tanks that are decades past their design life.

Highly radioactive waste from many of these tanks has leaked into the ground, and is moving through groundwater toward the Columbia River.

We need to get the radioactive waste out of those tanks without delay -- and that can only happen if we complete the Waste Treatment Plant to convert the waste into glass logs.

We're talking about the lives and livelihoods of over a million people in the Pacific Northwest.

We're talking about 42 cities and towns that are downriver from Hanford.

We're talking about farming, fishing, recreation, hydroelectric power, and every conceivable job in our region.

Below Hanford, businesses in Oregon and Washington along the Columbia River create 750,000 jobs -- and payrolls totaling $27.5 billion dollars.

In Washington alone, farming below Hanford is worth $6.4 billion dollars.

And the Columbia River has the single most important salmon run of the entire region. It drives the salmon fishery of the entire region.

This is what's at stake if the U.S. government fails to complete the cleanup at Hanford.

TOP OF PAGE

2) Why is it so important to clean up Hanford?: This is about public safety. Emptying those leaky tanks at Hanford, and turning that waste into glass logs for permanent storage, is absolutely vital to the health and safety of Americans throughout this region, and it's absolutely vital to the economy and the environment of the entire region.

The Columbia River is the lifeline of the entire region. It is not going to become a nuclear sewage disposal system for the nation.

TOP OF PAGE

3) Who is responsible for cleaning up the Hanford site?: The United States government has a moral and legal obligation to clean up the nation's toxic legacy of the Cold War. In World War II, the government took possession of 640 square miles of land and moved the local residents away in order to build the atomic bomb. Later, they used the Hanford Nuclear Reservation to build the nuclear deterrent that won the Cold War. The United States government has promised to clean it up; they must keep their promise.

TOP OF PAGE

4) What is the greatest danger at Hanford?: The greatest danger at Hanford is more delays. Many of the underground storage tanks for the highly radioactive waste are obsolete and leak-prone. The waste must be removed, and that can't happen until the treatment plant is completed. This is about the health and safety of American citizens. It's about the economy and the environment of an entire region of this country.

TOP OF PAGE

5) Why do further delays pose a problem?: We need commitment and continuity from the federal government. Since 1989 -- when the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Agency and the State of Washington signed an agreement to clean up Hanford -- we've had 11 Secretaries or Acting Secretaries of Energy. We've had three U.S. presidents.

There have been five different prime contractors for the Waste Treatment Plant:

1) Westinghouse Hanford
2) Lockheed Hanford
3) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
4) LMAES
5) Bechtel National, Inc.

Each new Secretary brings a new team and a new idea about how to do nuclear waste cleanup.

1) They've tried "cost-plus contracts."
2) They've tried "privatization."
3) They've tried "performance-based contracts."

In 1989, we agreed on a stable funding level that would get the Waste Treatment Plant completed by 2011. This year, President Bush reduced the funding by $100 million. Now we are fighting in Congress to restore stable funding for the Hanford cleanup.

The constant churning -- the fits and starts by the federal government -- pose the biggest problem at Hanford.

TOP OF PAGE

6) Why is this churn such a problem?: Imagine building your house this way. It could never be done. What would happen if you changed contractors every few weeks?

What would happen if you wrote up a new set of contract terms and conditions every few weeks?

What would happen if your bank called and told you the financing would be changing in mid-construction?

How long do you think it would take to build that house? And how much more would it cost you?

This is what is happening at Hanford.

TOP OF PAGE

7) How can the U.S. government make better progress at Hanford?: This is a private-sector project under federal oversight. But the federal government has not committed the resources needed to oversee a project of this magnitude. For example:

There are about 8,800 private-sector employees at work on the Hanford cleanup. They are employed by 13 private contractors.

To manage the contractors, the U.S. Department of Energy has 340-plus federal employees.

There are about 3,340 private employees working on the Waste Treatment Plant or associated facilities, or managing the high-level nuclear wastes in those tanks. This number is down significantly over the past year, as budget cuts and mismanagement delays have occurred.

By comparison, there are only 50 U.S. Energy Department employees overseeing the work on the Waste Treatment Plant.

The federal government needs to commit the resources to adequately manage construction on the Waste Treatment Plant, and get this project done.

TOP OF PAGE

8) What is happening to ensure the cleanup at Hanford stays on schedule?: We in the Pacific Northwest are not going to sit idly by while other new priorities distract the federal government from its moral and legal obligation to clean up the nation's Cold War toxic legacy.

Along with members of Congress, we are calling on the President to aggressively support a return to stable funding sufficient to complete the plant and empty the tanks.

TOP OF PAGE

9) What about design/build, or fast-tracking? Is this a good idea?: In January 2006, the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) project was more than 50 percent complete with 64 percent of design completed and 32 percent of the construction completed.

The state's environmental protection experts at Hanford say that design/build, in this case, is resulting in the best plant in the shortest amount of time.

The state does not condone mismanagement of the project by the federal government or the federal contractors.

However, the solution to these problems is not to slow down the construction and further delay emptying those leaky tanks.

Whenever the government has stopped to re-evaluate the treatment plant, they've come back with the same answers: it doesn't get cheaper, and this is the best technology.

The Corps of Engineers studied the project and recommended that future cost and schedule growth need to be managed through:

1) Aggressive U.S. Department of Energy and Bechtel National management
2) Sufficient annual funding
3) Contract incentives to control cost

The Corps recognizes the need to keep the project on track to completion and get the waste removed from the tanks.

TOP OF PAGE

10) What about construction mistakes?: We not condone the mistakes by the contractor, or the project management problems by the federal government.

Fortunately, the contractor, the Energy Department and the state Ecology Department have quality control systems in place to find these kinds of problems.

In every case that we're aware of, the problems have been caught and corrected to the satisfaction of state inspectors.

The state will not issue a permit for any part of the facility until we are certain it is safe to operate.

TOP OF PAGE

11) What about earthquake risks?: The Waste Treatment Plant is being designed to withstand a very high-impact earthquake. Even though the probability of such an earthquake is low, it is important the plant be designed to withstand such an earthquake.

The biggest concern is those old single-shell tanks -- which were never built to withstand a large earthquake. We absolutely must get the treatment plant completed, and get those old single-shell tanks emptied, without any more delays.

HANFORD HOME Ecology Nuclear Waste Program Gov. Gregoire on Hanford Economic risks to the region Cleanup progress to date Tank Waste Disposal project Public meetings Public comment periods Key documents Glossary ABOUT HANFORD Quick facts Overview presentation (ppt) Cleanup timeline Frequently Asked Questions Maps Photo gallery
	Hanford home > Frequently Asked Questions Hanford Frequently Asked Questions 1) What is the biggest threat to health and safety at Hanford? 2) Why is it so important to clean up Hanford? 3) Who is responsible for cleaning up the Hanford site? 4) What is the greatest danger at Hanford? 5) Why do further delays pose a problem? 6) Why is this churn such a problem? 7) How can the U.S. government make better progress at Hanford? 8) What is happening to ensure the cleanup at Hanford stays on schedule? 9) What about design/build, or fast-tracking? Is this a good idea? 10) What about construction mistakes? 11) What about earthquake risks? 1) What is the biggest threat to health and safety at Hanford? The greatest single health and safety risk at Hanford is 53 million gallons of highly radioactive waste -- much of it sitting in obsolete, leak-prone tanks that are decades past their design life. Highly radioactive waste from many of these tanks has leaked into the ground, and is moving through groundwater toward the Columbia River. We need to get the radioactive waste out of those tanks without delay -- and that can only happen if we complete the Waste Treatment Plant to convert the waste into glass logs. We're talking about the lives and livelihoods of over a million people in the Pacific Northwest. We're talking about 42 cities and towns that are downriver from Hanford. We're talking about farming, fishing, recreation, hydroelectric power, and every conceivable job in our region. Below Hanford, businesses in Oregon and Washington along the Columbia River create 750,000 jobs -- and payrolls totaling $27.5 billion dollars. In Washington alone, farming below Hanford is worth $6.4 billion dollars. And the Columbia River has the single most important salmon run of the entire region. It drives the salmon fishery of the entire region. This is what's at stake if the U.S. government fails to complete the cleanup at Hanford. TOP OF PAGE 2) Why is it so important to clean up Hanford? This is about public safety. Emptying those leaky tanks at Hanford, and turning that waste into glass logs for permanent storage, is absolutely vital to the health and safety of Americans throughout this region, and it's absolutely vital to the economy and the environment of the entire region. The Columbia River is the lifeline of the entire region. It is not going to become a nuclear sewage disposal system for the nation. TOP OF PAGE 3) Who is responsible for cleaning up the Hanford site? The United States government has a moral and legal obligation to clean up the nation's toxic legacy of the Cold War. In World War II, the government took possession of 640 square miles of land and moved the local residents away in order to build the atomic bomb. Later, they used the Hanford Nuclear Reservation to build the nuclear deterrent that won the Cold War. The United States government has promised to clean it up; they must keep their promise. TOP OF PAGE 4) What is the greatest danger at Hanford? The greatest danger at Hanford is more delays. Many of the underground storage tanks for the highly radioactive waste are obsolete and leak-prone. The waste must be removed, and that can't happen until the treatment plant is completed. This is about the health and safety of American citizens. It's about the economy and the environment of an entire region of this country. TOP OF PAGE 5) Why do further delays pose a problem? We need commitment and continuity from the federal government. Since 1989 -- when the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Agency and the State of Washington signed an agreement to clean up Hanford -- we've had 11 Secretaries or Acting Secretaries of Energy. We've had three U.S. presidents. There have been five different prime contractors for the Waste Treatment Plant: 1) Westinghouse Hanford 2) Lockheed Hanford 3) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd 4) LMAES 5) Bechtel National, Inc. Each new Secretary brings a new team and a new idea about how to do nuclear waste cleanup. 1) They've tried "cost-plus contracts." 2) They've tried "privatization." 3) They've tried "performance-based contracts." In 1989, we agreed on a stable funding level that would get the Waste Treatment Plant completed by 2011. This year, President Bush reduced the funding by $100 million. Now we are fighting in Congress to restore stable funding for the Hanford cleanup. The constant churning -- the fits and starts by the federal government -- pose the biggest problem at Hanford. TOP OF PAGE 6) Why is this churn such a problem? Imagine building your house this way. It could never be done. What would happen if you changed contractors every few weeks? What would happen if you wrote up a new set of contract terms and conditions every few weeks? What would happen if your bank called and told you the financing would be changing in mid-construction? How long do you think it would take to build that house? And how much more would it cost you? This is what is happening at Hanford. TOP OF PAGE 7) How can the U.S. government make better progress at Hanford? This is a private-sector project under federal oversight. But the federal government has not committed the resources needed to oversee a project of this magnitude. For example: There are about 8,800 private-sector employees at work on the Hanford cleanup. They are employed by 13 private contractors. To manage the contractors, the U.S. Department of Energy has 340-plus federal employees. There are about 3,340 private employees working on the Waste Treatment Plant or associated facilities, or managing the high-level nuclear wastes in those tanks. This number is down significantly over the past year, as budget cuts and mismanagement delays have occurred. By comparison, there are only 50 U.S. Energy Department employees overseeing the work on the Waste Treatment Plant. The federal government needs to commit the resources to adequately manage construction on the Waste Treatment Plant, and get this project done. TOP OF PAGE 8) What is happening to ensure the cleanup at Hanford stays on schedule? We in the Pacific Northwest are not going to sit idly by while other new priorities distract the federal government from its moral and legal obligation to clean up the nation's Cold War toxic legacy. Along with members of Congress, we are calling on the President to aggressively support a return to stable funding sufficient to complete the plant and empty the tanks. TOP OF PAGE 9) What about design/build, or fast-tracking? Is this a good idea? In January 2006, the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) project was more than 50 percent complete with 64 percent of design completed and 32 percent of the construction completed. The state's environmental protection experts at Hanford say that design/build, in this case, is resulting in the best plant in the shortest amount of time. The state does not condone mismanagement of the project by the federal government or the federal contractors. However, the solution to these problems is not to slow down the construction and further delay emptying those leaky tanks. Whenever the government has stopped to re-evaluate the treatment plant, they've come back with the same answers: it doesn't get cheaper, and this is the best technology. The Corps of Engineers studied the project and recommended that future cost and schedule growth need to be managed through: 1) Aggressive U.S. Department of Energy and Bechtel National management 2) Sufficient annual funding 3) Contract incentives to control cost The Corps recognizes the need to keep the project on track to completion and get the waste removed from the tanks. TOP OF PAGE 10) What about construction mistakes? We not condone the mistakes by the contractor, or the project management problems by the federal government. Fortunately, the contractor, the Energy Department and the state Ecology Department have quality control systems in place to find these kinds of problems. In every case that we're aware of, the problems have been caught and corrected to the satisfaction of state inspectors. The state will not issue a permit for any part of the facility until we are certain it is safe to operate. TOP OF PAGE 11) What about earthquake risks? The Waste Treatment Plant is being designed to withstand a very high-impact earthquake. Even though the probability of such an earthquake is low, it is important the plant be designed to withstand such an earthquake. The biggest concern is those old single-shell tanks -- which were never built to withstand a large earthquake. We absolutely must get the treatment plant completed, and get those old single-shell tanks emptied, without any more delays. TOP OF PAGE