Nuclear Waste: DOE's Efforts to Protect the Columbia River from  
Contamination Could Be Further Strengthened (28-AUG-06, 	 
GAO-06-1018).							 
                                                                 
The Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford site in Washington State
is one of the most contaminated nuclear waste sites in North	 
America. The Columbia River flows through about 50 miles of the  
site. Radioactive and hazardous contamination from decades of	 
producing nuclear materials for the nation's defense have	 
migrated through the soil into the groundwater, which generally  
flows toward the river. In November 2005, GAO reported on the	 
potential for the Hanford site to contaminate the Columbia River.
To address continuing concerns, GAO reviewed the status of DOE's 
efforts to (1) understand the risk to the Columbia River from	 
Hanford site contamination and to deploy effective technologies  
to address contamination near the river and (2) strengthen the	 
management of its river protection program. To assess DOE's	 
efforts, GAO reviewed numerous reports by DOE and others, and	 
discussed the problem with federal and state regulators and DOE  
officials.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-1018					        
    ACCNO:   A59706						        
  TITLE:     Nuclear Waste: DOE's Efforts to Protect the Columbia     
River from Contamination Could Be Further Strengthened		 
     DATE:   08/28/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Contaminants					 
	     Contamination					 
	     Environmental cleanups				 
	     Environmental protection				 
	     Groundwater					 
	     Nuclear waste management				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Radioactive waste disposal 			 
	     Rivers						 
	     Soil pollution					 
	     Water pollution					 
	     Water pollution control				 
	     Columbia River (WA)				 
	     DOE Hanford Tri-Party Agreement			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-1018

     

     * Results in Brief
     * Background
     * DOE is Taking Steps to Better Understand Risks to the Columb
          * DOE Has Asked to Extend Regulatory Milestones to Better Unde
          * DOE Is Reworking Efforts to Estimate Risks from the Movement
          * DOE Is Considering New Treatment Technologies to Replace Tho
     * DOE Has Begun To Address Management Weaknesses but Can Furth
          * DOE Is Taking Steps to Improve River Protection Management a
          * DOE Has Not Fully Implemented a Management Plan to Ensure Im
     * Conclusions
     * Recommendation for Executive Action
     * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
     * Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy
     * Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
          * GAO Contact
          * Staff Acknowledgments
               * Order by Mail or Phone

Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

August 2006

NUCLEAR WASTE

DOE's Efforts to Protect the Columbia River from Contamination Could Be
Further Strengthened

GAO-06-1018

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 7
Background 9
DOE is Taking Steps to Better Understand Risks to the Columbia River from
Hanford and Is Replacing Ineffective Technologies near the River 11
DOE Has Begun To Address Management Weaknesses but Can Further Strengthen
Its Management Plan 15
Conclusions 21
Recommendation for Executive Action 22
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 22
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 24
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Energy 26
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 28

Figure

Figure 1: Sources of Contamination of the Columbia River from DOE's
Hanford Site 2

Abbreviations

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

DOE Department of Energy

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

August 28, 2006

The Honorable David L. Hobson Chairman The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky
Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives

The Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford site in southeastern Washington
State is one of the most contaminated nuclear waste sites in North
America. The site occupies 586 square miles upriver from the cities of
Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick, with a combined regional population of
over 200,000. During Hanford's production era, beginning in 1943, nine
nuclear reactors were built at the site to produce nuclear materials,
especially plutonium, for the nation's defense. The site was selected, in
part, because the Columbia River, the nation's second largest river by
volume, flows through almost 50 miles of it; the river water was used to
cool nuclear reactors and support nuclear materials processing operations.
During operations from 1943 to 1989, activity at the reactors and other
facilities also generated large volumes of hazardous and radioactive
waste. Some of this waste was deposited directly into the ground in
trenches, injection wells, or other facilities designed to allow the waste
to disperse into the soil; some was packaged into drums and other
containers and buried; and some was stored in 177 large underground tanks.

Over time, concern has developed about the impact of Hanford's radioactive
and hazardous waste moving through the groundwater toward the Columbia
River. The river is a source of hydropower production, irrigation for
agriculture, and drinking water for downstream communities, as well as a
major route for migrating salmon. Besides the waste intentionally
discharged directly into the ground during the time of reactor operations,
DOE has assumed, based on monitoring data and other techniques used to
detect contamination, that 67 of the underground tanks, some burial
grounds, and other waste disposal areas have also leaked contamination
into the soil. Contamination could also result from accidental spills
during ongoing cleanup activities. Much of this hazardous and radioactive
waste can be borne by water through the soil into the groundwater. While
Hanford is a near-desert location with limited rainfall and, in many
areas, thick layers of soil and rock above the groundwater, water from
precipitation and other sources moves through these layers into the
groundwater. The groundwater moves in the general direction of the river.
In the center of the site the groundwater is more than 200 feet below the
surface, but at the river the groundwater is at or near the river level.
As figure 1 illustrates, the movement of this contaminated liquid through
the "vadose zone"-the span of soil and rock between the surface and the
groundwater beneath-can result in contamination "plumes" extending
downward and outward from their sources. When these contamination plumes
reach the groundwater, the contamination they contain enters the
groundwater and begins flowing toward the river.

Figure 1: Sources of Contamination of the Columbia River from DOE's
Hanford Site

The extent to which contamination from the Hanford site has threatened, or
will threaten, the Columbia River, is not fully understood. While some
contamination has already reached the river, DOE has found that it is
barely detectable because the high volume of water dilutes it. DOE
routinely monitors the river's water quality, which currently meets
federal drinking water standards at sampling locations immediately down
river from the Hanford site. However, studies also show that contamination
has been found in some river life, including clams found near the shore.
In addition, the rate at which contamination in the vadose zone and
groundwater may migrate to the river in future years is uncertain, and
depends on the effectiveness of site cleanup activities. However,
migrating contamination may continue to enter the river in the foreseeable
future.

Since the early 1990s, DOE has shifted its efforts at the Hanford site
from production of nuclear materials to cleaning up the contamination and
other materials left over from the production era. DOE carries out its
cleanup activities primarily under the requirements of two environmental
laws: (1) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA); and (2) the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA). Milestones for
completing each step of the cleanup process are specified in a legally
binding agreement (commonly known as the Tri-Party Agreement) between DOE
and its regulators-the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Washington State Department of Ecology.1 Under the Tri-Party Agreement,
DOE must complete remediation of most of the site's soil and groundwater
by September 2024. DOE's goal is to complete all cleanup work at the
Hanford site by 2035.

The Tri-Party Agreement incorporates the requirements of federal
environmental laws and guides the process under which DOE will analyze the
contamination and consider remedies, which DOE's regulators must approve.2
First, DOE must conduct a remedial investigation, in which it carries out
field sampling and laboratory analyses to determine the nature and extent
of contamination. DOE is then required to conduct a feasibility study to
develop and screen an initial list of remedial alternatives. After
obtaining additional data, as necessary, DOE must analyze various remedial
alternatives and select a preferred remedy. The determination of the
preferred remedy is to be based on, among other things, whether a remedial
alternative protects human health and the environment, as well as whether
it attains cleanup standards that are legally applicable or otherwise
relevant and appropriate, including state laws. For example, DOE and its
regulators have determined that the Safe Drinking Water Act3 provides
standards for many of the contaminants in the soil and groundwater at
Hanford. In addition, DOE must consider seven other criteria in selecting
a remedial approach, including the cost effectiveness of the remedy, its
long-term protectiveness of human health and the environment, and
community acceptance. Currently, DOE is required by the Tri-Party
Agreement to meet a deadline of December 2008 to select preferred remedial
alternatives for 57 separate waste management areas of the site-known as
operable units.4

1Formally titled the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order,
it was signed in May 1989 and has been amended numerous times since then.

2Some Hanford cleanup activities are conducted under the requirements of
CERCLA, while others are conducted under RCRA. Though the terminology used
to describe cleanup requirements under the two laws differs, the processes
generally are functionally equivalent. In this report we use the
terminology of the CERCLA program.

342 U.S.C. S:S: 300f - 300j-26.

After DOE selects a preferred remedial alternative, the lead regulatory
agency-either EPA or the state of Washington-prepares a Record of
Decision5 that selects the final remedy. A Record of Decision generally
describes, among other things, (1) the key contaminants present in the
specific waste management area, (2) the contamination limits DOE must
achieve for each key contaminant, (3) the time frame in which the cleanup
goals will be achieved, and (4) the technologies to be used to address the
contamination. In general, if contaminants remain at the site as part of
the final remedy, DOE and its regulators are required to review the
remedial action every 5 years to determine whether the selected treatment
technology is effective in protecting human health and the environment.

DOE's cleanup program at the Hanford site is aimed, in part, at protecting
the Columbia River from contamination, now and in the future. Many of the
river protection activities treat contamination before it enters the
vadose zone or groundwater, and we have reported on several of these
activities.6 Regarding DOE's efforts to address contamination in the
vadose zone and groundwater, DOE has prioritized the work to first address
threats from contaminated sites located near the river or requiring
immediate action, and then address threats from contaminated sites that
are farther away from the river's edge.

4The Hanford site is divided into 57 different operable units. These
operable units are divided into source operable units-covering areas such
as contamination in buildings, soils, and burial grounds-and groundwater
operable units. Forty-seven source operable units address contamination in
the soils and vadose zone, and ten groundwater operable units address
contamination in the groundwater. As of July 2006, field investigations
for one groundwater operable unit had been completed.

5Under CERCLA, DOE must prepare a Record of Decision. Under RCRA, DOE
prepares a Corrective Measures Study. For either, DOE generally provides
the same information about extent and nature of contaminants, and proposed
remedies.

6See, for example, GAO, Hanford Waste Treatment Plant: Contractor and DOE
Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and
Safety Concerns, GAO-06-602T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6, 2006); GAO,
Nuclear Waste: Absence of Key Management Reforms on Hanford's Cleanup
Project Adds to Challenges of Achieving Cost and Schedule Goals,
GAO-04-611 (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2004); GAO, Nuclear Waste:
Challenges to Achieving Potential Savings in DOE's High-Level Waste
Cleanup Program, GAO-03-593 (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2003).

DOE's effort to address contamination near the river include actively
removing waste, old buildings, and contaminated soil to reduce
contaminants that could migrate-known as the river corridor project-and
treating the groundwater to prevent contaminants from further migrating.
DOE has three main approaches to treating the groundwater:

           o  Pump-and-treat. With this approach, DOE uses wells to extract
           contaminated groundwater, treats the groundwater in above-ground
           facilities, and reinjects the treated water into the ground. Since
           1995, DOE has operated five pump-and-treat systems to remove
           strontium-90, chromium, carbon tetrachloride, and uranium from the
           groundwater. Four of these are intended to address near-river
           contamination of strontium-90 and chromium.
           o  Chemical treatment. This approach has been used in one
           instance. DOE uses a chemical barrier near the Columbia River to
           block chromium from entering the river near major salmon breeding
           areas.7 The barrier consists of a 750-yard series of wells through
           which DOE injected a chemical into the groundwater; the chemical
           reacts with the chromium to change it to a less hazardous and less
           mobile form.
           o  Natural attenuation. This approach relies on subsurface
           processes such as dilution, adsorption, and chemical reactions
           with subsurface materials to reduce contaminant concentrations to
           acceptable levels. For example, a large uranium plume in the
           groundwater is entering the river about 4 miles above city
           drinking water intakes. In 1996, DOE and its regulators agreed to
           allow the plume to dissipate through natural attenuation.

           DOE's efforts to address contamination threats that are farther
           from the river have involved four main types of actions:

           o  Characterizing the vadose zone and groundwater through sampling
           and other studies to help understand the risks from movement of
           contamination.
           o  Removing high-risk material from contaminated sites and/or
           covering the surface of the disposal area with a barrier to
           prevent water intrusion.
           o  Decommissioning (by removing or sealing) a portion of the 7,000
           wells used to monitor groundwater and the vadose zone, and for
           other purposes, that are no longer needed. Monitoring wells are
           important, but they can also contribute to pollution by serving as
           conduits for rain, snow melt, or other liquids to flush
           contaminants through the vadose zone and into the groundwater.
           o  Reducing water intrusion from leaking pipelines and surface
           drainage that can drive contamination from the vadose zone to the
           groundwater.

           DOE also monitors groundwater conditions and uses information
           about the nature and extent of contamination in the
           groundwater-and its migration toward the river-to assess current
           and future risks to the public and the environment. While current
           levels of contamination can be determined by sampling the river,
           soil, and groundwater, DOE uses computer models to predict how
           existing and future contamination from site cleanup and disposal
           activities will impact the river over the next 1,000 to 10,000
           years.

           In November 2005, we reported on the potential for Columbia River
           contamination from the Hanford site.8 We discussed DOE's
           understanding of the sources and extent of contamination that
           potentially threaten the river, and the mixed results that DOE's
           efforts to address the contamination have achieved so far. In
           addition, we discussed past criticisms of DOE's program
           management, including a poorly organized management structure and
           lack of coordination among various river protection activities.
           Because of continuing concerns about the risks posed by the
           contamination and DOE's management of its river protection
           program, you asked us to review the status of DOE's efforts. This
           report addresses DOE efforts (1) to understand the risk to the
           Columbia River from Hanford site contamination and to deploy
           effective technologies to address contamination near the river,
           and (2) to strengthen the management of its efforts to protect the
           Columbia River from Hanford site contamination.

           To address these objectives, we reviewed key documents, including
           Hanford's 2003 Groundwater Management Plan, the 2004 Hanford Site
           Groundwater Strategy, and reports from the National Academy of
           Sciences and the DOE Inspector General.9 We visited various
           groundwater protection projects at the Hanford site and discussed
           river contamination issues with DOE and contractor officials at
           Hanford. We also discussed these issues with state and federal
           regulators, and other stakeholders. In reviewing the data related
           to the groundwater and river programs, we determined they were
           sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. A more
           detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in
           appendix I. We conducted our work from December 2005 to August
           2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
           standards.

           Results in Brief
			  
			  DOE has begun taking steps to better understand the risk to the
           Columbia River from Hanford site contamination, and to replace
           cleanup technologies that have proven to be ineffective in keeping
           the contamination from seeping into the river. To better
           understand the nature and extent of the potential risk of
           contaminating the Columbia River, DOE and its regulators agreed to
           do additional sampling and analysis of the Hanford site's vadose
           zone. While DOE and its contractors have extensive knowledge of
           the contaminants that are currently in the groundwater and in the
           river, DOE knows less about the extent and location of
           contaminants in the vadose zone above the groundwater.
           Understanding contamination in the vadose zone is important for
           making decisions about how best to protect the Columbia River from
           the contamination. To accomplish this additional investigative
           work, DOE has requested a 3-year delay-until 2011-to the
           regulatory milestone by which DOE must propose to regulators its
           plans for addressing the groundwater and vadose zone contamination
           on the Hanford site. Once DOE understands the nature and extent of
           contamination in the vadose zone and groundwater, it must assess
           the risk to the public in future years by estimating how, and
           where, the contamination will migrate over time. While DOE relies
           on sampling to determine current conditions, it uses computer
           simulation models to predict future conditions and estimate future
           risks. DOE abandoned past modeling efforts in response to
           criticism that the models used inconsistent assumptions, were
           based on data of questionable reliability and had weak quality
           control processes. DOE is beginning to develop a model it believes
           will be more reliable. DOE has also begun taking steps to replace
           ineffective treatment approaches in response to concerns raised by
           us and others, and after receiving congressional direction to make
           $10 million available in fiscal year 2006 to research new
           treatment technologies at Hanford. These steps include replacing
           one pump-and-treat system, improving a leaking chemical barrier,
           and pursuing alternatives to allowing natural processes to control
           uranium migration.

           DOE has also begun to address management problems with its
           Columbia River protection efforts at the Hanford site. In March
           2006, as a result of congressional direction to improve management
           of its river protection efforts, DOE proposed key steps intended
           to better coordinate and manage groundwater and vadose zone
           activities at the site. These steps included (1) consolidating
           most groundwater and vadose zone activities under a single
           project, (2) better coordinating decisions about groundwater
           cleanup with decisions about how to address vadose zone
           contamination, and (3) consolidating risk assessment and modeling
           efforts under one project. DOE has taken steps in the past to
           address similar management problems, but the initiative was not
           successfully implemented. For example, in response to our 1998
           report calling for greater integration of river protection
           activities at the Hanford site,10 DOE took some initial steps to
           better coordinate its groundwater and vadose zone efforts.
           However, DOE did not implement key elements, such as developing a
           sitewide funding baseline of all river protection efforts; other
           elements, such as integrating groundwater and vadose zone
           activities under a single project manager, were initially
           implemented, but DOE did not continue them after changes in
           project organization and contract structuring occurred at the
           site.

           We previously reported11 that high-performing organizations
           sustained management improvement initiatives when they followed a
           systematic, results-oriented strategy that included defining
           specific program objectives, developing performance measures to
           gauge progress, and using results-oriented outcomes to evaluate
           the effectiveness of the initiative. As of July 2006, DOE had
           begun to determine the objectives of its new integration
           initiative, but had not yet fully developed other aspects of a
           sound management plan, including developing results-oriented
           performance measures to gauge effectiveness and evaluating the
           initiative using those measures. Unless DOE takes these steps, we
           are concerned about its ability to sustain any improvements its
           new initiative may offer. The DOE Hanford Assistant Manager in
           charge of overseeing the new integration initiative said that the
           management plan for the initiative is still evolving and that
           future steps may include developing performance measures and
           evaluation strategies to gauge effectiveness.

           We are recommending that the Secretary of Energy strengthen its
           management improvement plan by establishing results-oriented
           performance measures and regular evaluations to gauge the
           program's effectiveness and sustain benefits of the improvements
           over time. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOE agreed
           with our recommendation.

           Background
			  
			  Contamination from the Hanford site that may threaten the Columbia
           River includes (1) contamination that resulted from disposal
           activities during the era in which DOE produced nuclear material;
           (2) contamination that could occur during cleanup activities, such
           as from an accidental spill; and (3) possible future migration of
           contamination from waste that will be permanently disposed of on
           the Hanford site in accordance with the cleanup actions DOE and
           the regulators plan to use.

           Contamination from production era. Contamination at Hanford
           resulting from plutonium production (which occurred from 1943 to
           1989) that is currently migrating to the river is primarily
           from:12

           o  Intentional disposal of liquid waste and contaminated water
           into the ground (about 450 billion gallons).
           o  Leaks into the soil from waste tanks and the pipelines that
           connect them (between 500,000 to 1 million gallons containing
           about 1,000,000 curies of radioactivity).
           o  Contamination that has begun to migrate from solid waste (more
           than 710,000 cubic meters) disposed of on-site in burial grounds,
           pits, and other facilities.

           Chemical and radioactive contamination currently affects more than
           180 of the 586 square miles of the site's groundwater and large
           areas of the vadose zone. While there are numerous contaminants
           now in the vadose zone and the groundwater below, DOE believes the
           key contaminants in the groundwater include hazardous chemicals
           (such as carbon tetrachloride, chromium, nitrate, and
           trichloroethane) and radioactive materials (such as iodine-129,
           strontium-90, technetium-99, tritium, and uranium). These
           contaminants are of concern because of their extent, their
           mobility in the groundwater, and the potential health risks
           associated with them-at sufficient levels, some of these
           contaminants are toxic to humans or fish, while others are
           potential carcinogens.

           Potential contamination from current activities. Current cleanup
           efforts at the Hanford site could contribute to contamination of
           the vadose zone and groundwater that eventually reaches the river.
           For example, some of the waste put into underground storage tanks
           as liquid has since turned into sludge or saltcake.13 To dissolve
           it, more water will have to be introduced into the tanks-including
           tanks known to have leaked. This process may cause additional
           discharges into the soil.

           Possible future contamination. Under DOE's cleanup plans, and with
           regulator approval, a large amount of contaminants will remain
           on-site long into the future. This contamination may be in
           buildings, in mostly empty underground tanks, in covered burial
           grounds and waste disposal areas, and in approved disposal
           facilities. Contaminants may leach out of these facilities in the
           future and join existing contamination in the vadose zone and
           migrate to the groundwater, where they could migrate to the river.

           Based on groundwater sampling results, DOE reports that plumes of
           contamination continue to move through the vadose zone and the
           groundwater, and are leaching into the river. DOE estimates that
           about 80 square miles of groundwater under the site contains
           contaminants at, or above, federal drinking water standards.14
           Because the groundwater and the river are at the same relative
           elevation, these plumes are leaching directly into about 10 of the
           nearly 50 miles of river shore on the site.

           DOE's Office of Groundwater and Soil Remediation under the
           Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management sets overall
           policy and oversight for groundwater and soil remediation. At the
           Hanford site, both the Richland Operations Office and the Office
           of River Protection, as well as several contractors, are involved
           in groundwater and vadose zone activities. The monitoring of river
           and shoreline conditions, and groundwater sampling, is managed by
           the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Analysis of the
           samples is performed by several approved laboratories. Funding for
           groundwater and vadose zone activities at the site is difficult to
           identify due to the large number of organizations and activities
           involved and the structure of DOE's budget accounts. However,
           monitoring, characterization, well drilling and maintenance,
           remediation, and research activities received nearly $175 million
           in fiscal year 2006.

           DOE is Taking Steps to Better Understand Risks to the Columbia River
			  from Hanford and Is Replacing Ineffective Technologies near the River
			  
			  DOE is taking steps to better understand the risk to the Columbia
           River from Hanford site contamination and to replace ineffective
           cleanup technologies. Specifically, DOE is addressing problems
           with three main aspects of its Columbia River protection efforts.
           First, DOE and its regulators have agreed that additional
           investigation of contamination in the vadose zone is needed,
           although doing so could delay by about 3 years the date by which
           DOE will propose its cleanup plans to the regulators. Second, DOE
           is reworking its approach to modeling the future effects of
           contamination on river conditions. DOE abandoned past modeling
           efforts in response to criticism that the models used inconsistent
           assumptions, were based on data of questionable reliability, and
           had weak quality control processes. Third, in response to concerns
           about the effectiveness of some of the technologies DOE had
           deployed to remove or contain contamination near the river, and
           with specific direction from Congress, DOE is evaluating
           alternative technologies that may be more effective at addressing
           the contamination.

           DOE Has Asked to Extend Regulatory Milestones to Better Understand
			  the Extent and Location of the Contamination in Soil above the
			  Groundwater
			  
			  While DOE has extensive knowledge of the contaminants in the river
           and groundwater, and the movement of contaminants in the
           groundwater and on or near the surface, DOE has only recently
           developed limited information about the extent and location of the
           contamination that has migrated from the surface areas into the
           vadose zone above the groundwater. Understanding the nature of
           vadose zone contamination is critical to determining the most
           appropriate steps to take to protect the river now, and in future
           years, because contaminants still in the soil may continue to
           migrate until they eventually reach the groundwater and the river.
           DOE has studied some portions of the vadose zone, such as around
           the underground storage tanks, where extensive contamination from
           leaks and spills occurred in the past. In doing so, DOE found that
           some contamination, including technetium-99, had migrated as far
           as the groundwater. DOE contractors were able to map the migration
           of some of these contaminants. However, DOE acknowledges that its
           understanding of contaminants in the vadose zone is limited in
           many areas of the site. For example, cribs and trenches near the
           underground tanks received large volumes of contaminated wastes
           that dispersed directly to the ground. DOE has little information
           on the extent and location of the contamination in those areas,
           according to DOE officials responsible for planning their cleanup.
           They also said that characterization of the lower portions of the
           vadose zone is difficult and expensive, and few remediation
           techniques have been developed or tested for removing or isolating
           wastes that are located deep in the vadose zone.

           Understanding the extent of vadose zone contamination is critical
           because some contaminants still in the soil may continue to
           migrate until they eventually reach the groundwater and the river.
           Thus, understanding the type and volume of contaminants in the
           vadose zone and their rate of migration is essential to
           determining the most appropriate steps to take to protect the
           river now, and in future years.

           After finding unexpected contaminant migration in the vadose zone
           at one waste disposal area known as BC cribs-a location where
           liquids were discharged directly into the ground-DOE agreed with
           its regulators that its understanding of the vadose zone was
           inadequate to support the development of a final cleanup remedy
           for that area and some others. Although DOE had originally planned
           to defer some of its study of the vadose zone until after December
           2008, when draft cleanup plans were due, DOE now agrees that more
           sampling and analysis of the vadose zone is needed to guide
           cleanup decisions. As a result, DOE has proposed to regulators to
           extend the date for submitting draft cleanup plans until 2011. DOE
           officials said this will allow the time needed to develop a better
           understanding of vadose zone conditions and to investigate
           potential remedies.

           DOE Is Reworking Efforts to Estimate Risks from the Movement of
			  Contamination toward the River
			  
			  In response to the discovery that its previous models to estimate
           the future risks of the movement of contamination toward the river
           were based on data of questionable reliability, DOE has begun
           reworking these efforts. While DOE relies on sampling to determine
           current conditions, it uses computer simulation models to predict
           future conditions and estimate future risks. In 1998, DOE
           groundwater program officials said DOE concluded from its
           simulation models that the migration was slow enough that the
           contaminants included in the study would not exceed their limits
           for 1,000 years into the future. However, DOE was concerned about
           the completeness of the model and began an effort, known as the
           System Assessment Capability, to develop a more comprehensive
           model. This $16 million, 8-year effort was cancelled when, in the
           course of a lawsuit over Hanford's disposal plans,15 several
           quality assurance problems were found, including discrepancies in
           the data. DOE abandoned the past modeling efforts in response to
           criticisms that the models used inconsistent assumptions, were
           based on data of questionable reliability, and had weak quality
           control processes. In January 2006, DOE and Washington State
           settled the lawsuit. In the settlement agreement, DOE agreed to
           re-analyze and update its study of the cleanup's effect on
           groundwater. In addition, DOE agreed to consolidate two studies of
           the cleanup's effects on groundwater into a single, integrated
           study.

           DOE Is Considering New Treatment Technologies to Replace Those That
			  Have Not Kept Contamination from Entering the River
			  
			  Both DOE and its regulators have determined that the results of
           all three of DOE's approaches to treating
           groundwater-pump-and-treat, chemical treatment, and natural
           attenuation-are not fully satisfactory. Specifically:

           o  Pump-and-treat. In a 2004 report, the DOE Inspector General
           concluded that the pump-and-treat system to remove strontium-90
           was ineffective and that the other four pump-and-treat systems
           have had mixed results. However, Hanford's acting groundwater
           project manager told us that four of the five pump-and-treat
           systems at the Hanford site meet the remedial objectives agreed to
           with Hanford's regulators. The official acknowledged that the
           system to remove strontium-90 was largely ineffective and that DOE
           had been trying to obtain permission from the regulators to turn
           it off. Both DOE and the regulators told us that the regulators
           refused to allow the system to be turned off, however, until a
           more effective remedy was found. In March 2006, after spending
           about $16 million since 1996 to install and operate the system,
           DOE turned the system off with the regulators' permission, and
           began testing a chemical barrier to prevent the strontium-90 from
           entering the river.
           o  Chemical treatment. In 2004, DOE reported that, based on
           groundwater samples, the chemical barrier for chromium was not
           fully effective, and that the hazardous form of chromium was
           detected beyond the barrier and close to the river. DOE is
           currently testing alternative approaches to improve the barrier.
           o  Natural attenuation. According to monitoring well data, DOE's
           reliance on natural attenuation to dissipate a uranium plume near
           the city of Richland was ineffective and has not controlled the
           migration of uranium to the river. The plume has not dissipated in
           the 10-year period since the natural attenuation strategy was
           adopted. DOE is currently investigating the plume, testing
           chemical barriers, and exploring other ways to mitigate the
           problem.

           In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 Energy
           and Water Development Appropriations Act, the conferees directed
           DOE to make $10 million available to analyze and identify new
           technologies to address contaminant migration to the Columbia
           River.16 DOE convened a study group to identify potential
           technologies and determine how best to allocate the funds to
           support them. According to DOE's groundwater project manager, if
           the technologies tested are successful, DOE will seek funds to
           expand the systems to fully address these problems. DOE is testing
           the following:

           o  To address problems with pump-and-treat systems, DOE is testing
           new approaches to containing strontium-90 and chromium. To contain
           the strontium, DOE is testing two techniques: (1) using a chemical
           to bind the strontium to the soil until it decays, which would
           prevent it from leaching into the river; and (2) planting willow
           bushes near shore to capture the strontium in the plants, which
           can be harvested to dispose of the strontium. For chromium
           removal, DOE has adopted a "systems approach" which includes
           combining source removal, pump-and-treat system expansion, and
           barrier repairs according to DOE's groundwater project manager.
           DOE is also planning to test an improvement to the pump-and-treat
           system. The test system will use an electric field to remove the
           chromium from the groundwater extracted by several of the existing
           wells. If it succeeds, DOE's project manager said, they will
           expand the pump-and-treat system to include this technology.
           o  To address problems with the chromium barrier near the river,
           DOE plans to inject chemicals through the wells used to create the
           barrier to help convert the chromium to a less toxic and less
           mobile form.
           o  To address problems with using natural attenuation to dissipate
           the uranium plume near the city of Richland, DOE is testing
           whether injecting a chemical called polyphosphate can help prevent
           the uranium from migrating to the river.

           In addition to these activities, DOE plans to research methods to
           better understand the existing carbon tetrachloride plume in the
           center of the site.

           DOE Has Begun To Address Management Weaknesses but Can Further
			  Strengthen Its Management Plan
			  
			  DOE has begun to address management problems with its Columbia
           River protection efforts at the Hanford site by proposing
           management improvements to better oversee and coordinate its
           groundwater and vadose zone activities. Although those steps are
           important and needed, we are concerned about DOE's ability to
           sustain any improvements made. Similar efforts in the past failed.
           In our previous work, we reported that leading organizations use a
           systematic, results-oriented plan to sustain management
           improvement initiatives. Such a plan incorporates key elements,
           such as clear goals, performance measures to gauge progress toward
           those goals, and an evaluation strategy to help ensure the
           initiative is effective. Although DOE is beginning to develop a
           plan for its new integration initiative, it has yet to implement
           key elements, such as performance measures or an evaluation
           strategy. These tools could help measure effectiveness and sustain
           the benefits of the initiative over time.

           DOE Is Taking Steps to Improve River Protection Management and Oversight
			  
			  DOE is beginning to address longstanding concerns about the
           management and oversight of its Columbia River protection efforts
           at the Hanford site. In November 2005, we reported that DOE's
           river protection efforts continued to be fragmented among two DOE
           site operations offices and several site contractors.17 We raised
           concerns that the potential existed for duplication, gaps, and
           inefficiencies. Subsequently, in the November 2005 conference
           report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water
           Development Appropriations Act,18 the conference committee cited
           these continuing management and organization problems and directed
           DOE to study how to better integrate its river protection efforts.
           In response to the congressional direction, in March 2006, DOE's
           Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management developed a new
           plan to better integrate Hanford's river protection, vadose zone,
           and groundwater efforts. Specifically, DOE's new integration
           initiative would:

           o  Consolidate most groundwater and vadose zone characterization
           and cleanup activities under a single project. At the time of the
           congressional direction, two DOE offices and three main
           contractors on-site were collectively responsible for
           characterizing and cleaning up vadose zone and groundwater
           contamination.19 The Office of River Protection and its
           contractor, CH2M Hill Hanford Group, were responsible for
           characterizing and addressing contamination of the vadose zone in
           tank farms-areas where tanks containing radioactive liquid waste
           are buried. The Richland Operations Office and its contractors,
           Fluor Hanford and Washington Closure Hanford, were responsible for
           vadose zone characterization in the central plateau area of the
           site and along the river corridor, respectively. In addition,
           Fluor Hanford was responsible for groundwater activities in all
           areas of the site. Within Fluor Hanford, responsibility for
           cleanup of the groundwater and vadose zone was divided between two
           different projects with the project handling vadose zone issues
           also responsible for addressing removal of old buildings and
           burial grounds.

           To better coordinate vadose zone and groundwater characterization
           and cleanup activities, DOE's new integration initiative proposed
           consolidating most of this work under a single project managed and
           coordinated by Fluor Hanford. To do so, DOE planned to modify
           existing contracts with the affected contractors to reflect this
           reorganization. In June 2006, the Office of River Protection and
           the Richland Operations Office issued a Plan of Action for Hanford
           Groundwater and Vadose Zone Integration Improvements. It
           identified general activities and areas of responsibility that the
           Fluor Hanford and CH2M Hill Hanford Group contractors would be
           responsible for under the new initiative. As of the end of July
           2006, DOE was negotiating the details of this reorganization of
           responsibilities with the contractors and anticipated having the
           contracts modified to reflect the changes by October 1, 2006.

           o  Better integrate vadose zone, groundwater, and waste disposal
           site cleanup decisions. DOE acknowledged that decisions about when
           and how to address vadose zone and groundwater contamination were
           not always well coordinated, and they generally were not
           coordinated with decisions about when and how to address the
           source contamination in a waste disposal site located above the
           vadose zone and groundwater. For example, initial plans for
           cleanup decisions of the surface areas in the Central Plateau were
           not necessarily linked to the plans for the underlying groundwater
           units, according to DOE's groundwater project manager.

           To better integrate vadose zone, groundwater, and waste disposal
           site cleanup decisions, DOE proposed to implement a new strategy
           by the end of fiscal year 2006 and to work with regulators to
           better align regulatory milestone dates for making cleanup
           decisions about waste sites, the vadose zone, and the groundwater.
           DOE's new strategy includes plans to transfer most vadose zone
           characterization activities into the groundwater program.

           o  Consolidate responsibility for modeling the movement of
           contaminants through the vadose zone and groundwater to estimate
           the potential current and future health risks. DOE has
           acknowledged that inconsistencies and reliability problems existed
           in the modeling of how contaminants move through the vadose zone
           and groundwater, and how the environmental risks associated with
           those contaminants were estimated. A DOE team reviewing the data
           quality issues and the modeling effort found that, in addition to
           issues of the reliability of data used in the models, various
           modeling efforts under way were based on different assumptions,
           and information about contamination movement was not always
           correctly transferred to other models.

           To address these problems, DOE proposed to more closely coordinate
           modeling and risk assessment activities at the site and strengthen
           control over model design so that a common set of databases and
           assumptions were being used for decision making. The groundwater
           project would have configuration control over any models used so
           that any changes to databases and models assumptions would require
           approval by the groundwater project before users could implement
           them.

           In addition to these management improvement efforts at the Hanford
           site, in May 2006, DOE also established a new Office of
           Groundwater and Soil Remediation to improve headquarters'
           oversight on issues dealing with soil and groundwater
           contamination across the DOE complex. The office is tasked with
           reviewing all soil and groundwater remedies at DOE sites, helping
           to develop technologies to solve groundwater and soil
           contamination problems at different DOE sites, and generally
           overseeing DOE policy and assessments regarding vadose zone and
           groundwater cleanup.

           DOE Has Not Fully Implemented a Management Plan to Ensure Improvements
			  Will Be Sustained
			  
			  Given past problems fully implementing and sustaining improvements
           to the management of DOE's Columbia River protection efforts at
           the Hanford site, it is uncertain whether any improvements that
           result from DOE's new integration initiative will be sustained. In
           1998, we reported that DOE lacked a comprehensive and integrated
           groundwater and vadose zone program,20 and recommended that DOE
           implement an integrated strategy that defined measurable
           performance goals, clearly defined leadership roles, and
           established accountability for meeting those goals.

           In response to our 1998 report, DOE proposed an integrated
           management plan to coordinate groundwater and vadose zone work.21
           To accomplish this, DOE assigned a single DOE Assistant Manager in
           the Richland Operations Office to coordinate all groundwater and
           vadose zone work at the Hanford site. Because DOE's other site
           office, the Office of River Protection, and several contractors at
           the site also carried out groundwater and vadose zone cleanup, DOE
           made the Assistant Manager responsible for ensuring that all
           groundwater and vadose zone activities were integrated into a
           single planning effort. This "Integration Project" included
           developing a sitewide approach to project planning, funding, and
           information management, and co-locating contractor staff working
           on the project to improve coordination. In addition, the project
           included improving coordination of efforts to develop science and
           technology to address contamination in the vadose zone and
           groundwater.

           Despite these proposed changes, DOE was unable to effectively
           implement the improvements it planned to make. For example,
           according to a site official at Hanford who oversaw the initial
           integration effort, DOE did not implement key elements of the
           plan, such as establishing a sitewide funding profile for all
           groundwater and vadose zone activities. DOE implemented other
           elements of the plan but did not sustain them when changes, such
           as how projects were organized and contracts were structured,
           occurred at the site. For example, coordinating all activities
           through a single federal project manager faltered as site offices
           were reorganized and responsibilities were distributed among three
           federal project directors. The DOE official from the Hanford
           groundwater program attributes the lack of coordination of
           groundwater and vadose zone efforts to redefining project
           activities, which resulted in groundwater and vadose zone
           activities being managed as separate projects and changes in the
           structure of site contracts, which resulted in scopes of work
           being organized and assigned differently. A 2001 National Academy
           of Sciences review of DOE's groundwater science and technology
           activities noted that DOE's integration efforts had been
           superimposed over several already existing cleanup projects
           without establishing a clear line of responsibility for results.
           The National Academy said that this left the program operating in
           an unstable environment.22

           To increase the chances of success for DOE's current improvement
           initiative, we assessed DOE's management of its new integration
           initiative against model practices used by organizations that
           successfully sustained improvement initiatives. We previously
           reported that in high-performing organizations, management
           improvement initiatives are sustained by using a systematic,
           results-oriented plan that incorporates a rigorous measurement of
           progress.23 Such a plan typically included the following steps:
           (1) defining clear program goals for the initiative-important
           because it focuses an organization's efforts on achieving specific
           outcomes and allows as assessment of future performance against
           those goals; (2) developing an implementation strategy that sets
           milestones and establishes individual responsibilities-important
           because it establishes accountability for achieving the
           initiative's goals; (3) establishing results-oriented performance
           measures-important because it allows organizations to measure
           progress toward achieving their goals; and (4) using
           results-oriented data to evaluate the effectiveness of the
           initiative and make additional changes where warranted-important
           because periodic evaluations can reveal systemic problems and
           promote continuous program improvement over the long term.

           As of July 2006, DOE had implemented two components and not
           implemented other management components to help ensure that it
           could sustain any improvements resulting from its new integration
           initiative. For example, in putting forward its plan to Congress,
           DOE described a general goal of its new integration initiative as
           better coordination of Hanford's groundwater and vadose zone
           cleanup activities in order to achieve greater protection of the
           Columbia River. DOE also outlined steps it would take toward its
           goal, such as (1) consolidating site modeling and risk
           assessments; (2) consolidating river protection efforts under a
           single project; and (3) integrating soil and groundwater cleanup
           decisions. In going forward, DOE could further refine its goals to
           include measurable steps to achieving its overall goal of
           protecting the river. For example, a more measurable goal would be
           the reduction of contamination reaching the river or ensuring
           duplication of efforts is reduced in order to better protect the
           Columbia River.

           DOE had established general milestones and individual
           responsibilities for implementing its new integration initiative.
           For example, DOE's plan of action sets 16 milestones by September
           2006 by which various initial steps are to be taken. DOE also
           reported that five of these actions, including making staff
           assignments and establishing an integrated project team, had been
           completed.

           DOE has not established results-oriented measures to gauge the
           progress of its integrated management initiative. In outlining the
           steps it will take under its plan, DOE has generally concentrated
           on establishing relationships and moving work-scope between
           various DOE offices and contractors, and not on outcomes, such as
           reducing redundancies or gaps in river protection efforts. Without
           clear results-oriented performance measures to gauge progress,
           problems that occur under a fragmented management structure could
           be masked and allowed to continue under DOE's integration plan.
           Translating the general goal of "better integration" and
           "protection of the river" into a more specific goal, such as
           reducing duplicative efforts, would help DOE identify ways it
           could measure results and, therefore, gauge progress toward the
           goals of its integration initiative.

           Finally, DOE has not yet identified an evaluation strategy to
           determine whether the steps it is taking are effective and are
           being sustained. Without an evaluation strategy based on clear
           goals and results-oriented measures, DOE will not have the
           results-oriented data necessary to objectively evaluate progress
           and implement corrective actions as needed.

           Although DOE is still working to define and implement its
           integration initiative, fully developing and putting in place key
           elements outlined above could help ensure that any program
           improvements are sustained in the future. DOE's Hanford Assistant
           Manager in charge of overseeing the latest management improvements
           for the river protection program said that, beyond outlining broad
           goals and setting the framework for roles and responsibilities,
           DOE had not yet fully developed a project execution plan for the
           new initiative. He said that the management plan is still evolving
           and that future steps may include more clearly defining
           performance measures and strategies for evaluating the
           initiative's effectiveness.

           Conclusions
			  
			  DOE is involved in a lengthy process to identify and address
           potential threats to the Columbia River from contamination in the
           soil and groundwater at the Hanford site. This requires a good
           understanding of the risks to the river and an effective
           management strategy for addressing those risks. Over the years, we
           and others have raised concerns about DOE's efforts to understand
           the nature and extent of the contamination and how best to manage
           the efforts to prevent contamination from seeping into the river.
           In recent months, DOE has taken several steps to gain a better
           understanding of the risks from the contamination as well as to
           improve its management of the program and integration of
           activities. While these steps are encouraging, DOE has not yet
           decided whether to put in place elements of a management plan that
           could help ensure potential benefits of these improvements will be
           continued, even when organizational and contract changes occur at
           the site. Such a management plan should include developing
           results-oriented performance measures, using the measures to
           determine progress toward objectives, and making changes as
           necessary.

           Recommendation for Executive Action
			 
			  To increase the likelihood that DOE will effectively implement and
           sustain improvements in its program to protect the Columbia River
           from contamination at the Hanford site, we recommend that the
           Secretary of Energy strengthen the management improvement plan by
           establishing results-oriented performance measures and regular
           evaluations to gauge the program's effectiveness.

           Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
			  
			  We provided a draft of this report to DOE for its review and
           comment. In a letter from DOE's Principal Deputy Assistant
           Secretary for Environmental Management, DOE agreed with the
           report's findings and fully endorsed the recommendation to adopt
           results-oriented performance measures and regular evaluations of
           the river protection program. DOE acknowledged that performance
           measures and regular evaluations are a fundamental and integral
           component of sound project management practice and said that it
           would incorporate them into the project. The full text of DOE's
           comments is presented in appendix II.

           As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
           contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
           until 7 days after the date of this report. At that time, we will
           send copies of this report to other interested congressional
           committees and to the Secretary of Energy. Copies will be made
           available to others on request. In addition, this report will be
           available at no charge on our Web site at http:// www.gao.gov .

           If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please
           contact me at (202) 512-3841 or by e-mail at [email protected].
           Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and
           Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Other
           staff contributing to this report are listed in appendix III.

           Gene Aloise Director, Natural Resources and Environment

           Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
			  
			  To understand the risk to the Columbia River from Hanford site
           contamination, we reviewed risk assessments, groundwater, vadose
           zone, and river monitoring reports by the Department of Energy
           (DOE), DOE's Office of Inspector General, DOE contractors
           including the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and various
           outside groups such as the National Academy of Sciences. We
           interviewed DOE officials at both headquarters and the Hanford
           site, as well as contractor staff at Hanford, to obtain
           information on the distribution of contamination at Hanford and
           the steps being taken to better understand it. To understand DOE's
           approach to the vadose zone, we primarily reviewed our 1998
           report, as well as documents prepared by DOE and its staff in
           response to that report. We also reviewed documents DOE submitted
           to regulators related to changing Tri-Party Agreement milestones;
           the documents were to be used for preparing initial drafts of
           plans for all remaining contaminated areas. We discussed the
           proposed change to the December 2008 Tri-Party Agreement milestone
           with DOE officials and regulators. In reviewing DOE's efforts to
           determine the extent of risk of future damage to the river from
           contamination, we reviewed documents related to DOE's sitewide
           modeling effort and legal documents related to this modeling
           effort. We discussed these modeling efforts with DOE officials,
           contractors, and regulators.

           In assessing DOE's efforts to deploy effective technologies to
           address contamination near the river, we visited the sites of
           existing and planned cleanup efforts. We discussed current
           existing projects with DOE officials, contractor staff,
           regulators, and stakeholders, and reviewed reports prepared for
           DOE and others. To assess technology plans developed by DOE to use
           $10 million of funds earmarked for fiscal year 2006, we attended
           DOE screening panels, reviewed reports prepared by DOE and others,
           and discussed the efforts with DOE regulators.

           To review DOE efforts to strengthen the management of its river
           protection efforts, we reviewed DOE's past and current management
           plans. We obtained DOE's recent integration initiative proposals,
           including its proposal to Congress in March 2006 and its
           subsequent Memorandum of Agreement and Plan of Action. We
           discussed DOE's approach with headquarters and site officials. We
           reviewed previous work in which we documented strategies used by
           high-performing organizations to implement improvement
           initiatives. We reviewed DOE's proposed integration initiative and
           compared it to key elements of these strategies. We also discussed
           DOE's plans to implement its strategy with knowledgeable site
           officials.

           In reviewing the management of DOE programs related to groundwater
           and river protection, we reviewed DOE efforts to assure that
           contamination levels were accurately reported; we also interviewed
           regulators, DOE officials, and contractors regarding data
           reliability. While we did not independently test the contaminant
           data, we reviewed controls over how the data were obtained and
           tested, visited sampling locations and discussed sampling methods
           with key staff, and reviewed other relevant information to
           determine that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
           purposes of our report. We conducted our work from December 2005
           to August 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government
           auditing standards.

           Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy
			  
			  Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
			  
			  GAO Contact
			  
			  Gene Aloise, (202) 512-3841

           Staff Acknowledgments
			  
			  In addition to the contact named above, Bill Swick, Assistant
           Director; Chris Abraham; Doreen Feldman; Nancy Kintner-Meyer;
           Jeffrey Larson; Omari Norman; Alison O'Neill; Thomas Perry; and
           Stan Stenersen made significant contributions to this report.
           Others who made important contributions included Mark Braza,
           Doreen Eng, and Mehrzad Nadji.

           Staff Acknowledgments
			  
			  The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
           investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
           meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
           the performance and accountability of the federal government for
           the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
           evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
           recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
           informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
           commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
           accountability, integrity, and reliability.

           Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
			  
			  The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
           no cost is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday,
           GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on
           its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
           products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe
           to Updates."

           Order by Mail or Phone
			  
			  The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
           are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
           Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
           Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
           discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

           U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
           Washington, D.C. 20548

           To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
           (202) 512-6061

           To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
			 
			  Contact:

           Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
           [email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
           (202) 512-7470

           Congressional Relations
			  
			  Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400
           U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
           Washington, D.C. 20548

           Public Affairs
			  
			  Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
           512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548

7Chromium is toxic to fish.

8GAO, Department of Energy: Preliminary Information on the Potential for
Columbia River Contamination from the Hanford Site, GAO-06-77R
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 4, 2005).

9National Academy of Sciences, Science and Technology for Environmental
Cleanup at Hanford (Washington, D.C.: 2001); Office of Inspector General,
Groundwater Remediation Activities at Hanford, DOE/IG-0655, (Washington,
D.C.: July 22, 2004); and Office of Inspector General, Well
Decommissioning Activities at the Hanford Site, DOE/IG-0670, (Washington,
D.C.: Jan. 3, 2005).

10GAO, Nuclear Waste: Understanding of Waste Migration at Hanford is
Inadequate for Key Decisions, GAO/RCED-98-80 (Washington, D.C.: March 13,
1998).

11See GAO, Contract Reform: DOE Has Made Progress, but Actions Needed to
Ensure Initiatives Have Improved Results, GAO-02-798 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 13, 2002); also, GAO, DOE Contracting: Improved Program Management
Could Help Achieve Small Business Goal, GAO-06-501 (Washington, D.C.:
April 7, 2006).

12In addition, during Hanford's past operations, DOE and its predecessor
agencies directly discharged to the river cooling water from the reactors
which was contaminated with about 110 million curies of mostly short-lived
radionuclides. (Radioactivity is measured in curies. One curie equals 37
billion atomic disintegrations per second.) Operations also resulted in
air emissions of about 20 million curies from 1944 to 1972. The portion
that went to the river is unknown. These discharges are no longer
occurring.

13Saltcake is a moist sand-like material, such as sodium salts, that have
crystallized from the waste.

14While the groundwater at Hanford is generally not used as a source for
drinking water, drinking water standards are still a common measure of the
extent of contamination. EPA sets the maximum contaminant level for each
contaminant allowed in water delivered to a user of any public water
system. This is the federal standard for the contaminant.

15Washington v. Bodman, Civ.A. No. 2:03-cv-05018-AAM (E.D. Wash. filed
Mar. 4, 2003).

16H.R. Rep. No. 109-275, at 172 (2005).

17GAO, Department of Energy: Preliminary Information on the Potential for
Columbia River Contamination from the Hanford Site, GAO-06-77R
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 4, 2005).

18H.R. Rep. No. 109-275, at 172 (2005).

19In addition, DOE's PNNL was responsible for support activities, such as
science and technology development and groundwater monitoring activities.

20GAO, Nuclear Waste: Understanding of Waste Migration at Hanford is
Inadequate for Key Decisions, GAO/RCED-98-80 (Washington, D.C.: March 13,
1998).

21We have also previously reported about lack of integration among DOE
river protection efforts. For example, in 1992, we reported that DOE
lacked coordination in its efforts to monitor and characterize
contamination in the vadose zone. See GAO, Nuclear Waste: Improvements
Needed in Monitoring Contaminants in Hanford Soils, GAO/RCED-92-149
(Washington, D.C.: July 6, 1992).

22National Academy of Sciences, Science and Technology for Environmental
Cleanup at Hanford (Washington, D.C.: 2001).

23See GAO, Contract Reform: DOE Has Made Progress, but Actions Needed to
Ensure Initiatives Have Improved Results, GAO-02-798 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 13, 2002); also, GAO, DOE Contracting: Improved Program Management
Could Help Achieve Small Business Goal, GAO-06-501 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
7, 2006).

(360638)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-1018 .

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology,
click on the link above.

For more information, contact Gene Aloise at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-1018 , a report to Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives

August 2006

NUCLEAR WASTE

DOE's Efforts to Protect the Columbia River from Contamination Could Be
Further Strengthened

DOE's Hanford site in Washington State is one of the most contaminated
nuclear waste sites in North America. The Columbia River flows through
about 50 miles of the site. Radioactive and hazardous contamination from
decades of producing nuclear materials for the nation's defense have
migrated through the soil into the groundwater, which generally flows
toward the river.

In November 2005, GAO reported on the potential for the Hanford site to
contaminate the Columbia River. To address continuing concerns, GAO
reviewed the status of DOE's efforts to (1) understand the risk to the
Columbia River from Hanford site contamination and to deploy effective
technologies to address contamination near the river and (2) strengthen
the management of its river protection program. To assess DOE's efforts,
GAO reviewed numerous reports by DOE and others, and discussed the problem
with federal and state regulators and DOE officials.

What GAO Recommends

To increase the likelihood that DOE will effectively implement and sustain
improvements in its program to protect the Columbia River from
contamination, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Energy establish
results-oriented performance measures and regular evaluations to gauge the
improvements' effectiveness. DOE agreed with our recommendation.

The Department of Energy (DOE) is actively assessing the risk to the
Columbia River from Hanford site contamination and is addressing problems
with deployed river protection technologies. While DOE has extensive
knowledge of contaminants that are currently in the groundwater and river,
DOE knows less about contamination in the soil below the surface, known as
the "vadose zone." Before proposing a cleanup approach, DOE has agreed
with its regulators to take vadose zone samples in many of the
contaminated areas of the site. DOE is also improving its computer
simulation model that will predict future risk from the contamination, and
deploying alternative technologies it believes will more effectively
contain the contamination that may threaten the river.

DOE has also begun to address concerns about its management of Columbia
River protection efforts, particularly the lack of integration between
groundwater and vadose zone activities. In March 2006, in response to
congressional committee direction, DOE proposed a new initiative to better
integrate its river protection activities. The initiative included
consolidating most groundwater and vadose zone characterization work under
a single project; better integrating vadose zone, groundwater, and surface
cleanup decisions; and improving the coordination and control over
computer models used to predict movement of contamination in future years.

Initiating these management improvements is important, but it is equally
important that they be implemented effectively, and past history gives
some cause for concern. For example, one attempt by DOE to better
integrate these activities was unsuccessful when key elements, such as
putting all activities under a single project manager, failed to continue
after project and other changes occurred at the site. In past GAO work, we
reported that high-performing organizations sustained improvement
initiatives when key elements were in place, such as clear goals,
results-oriented performance measures, and evaluation strategies. Although
DOE is beginning to develop a management plan for its new initiative, DOE
has yet to implement some key elements, such as results-oriented
performance measures and evaluations to gauge the effectiveness of its
improvements, which could also help sustain the benefits of the
improvements over time.

Contamination of the Columbia River from DOE's Hanford Site
*** End of document. ***