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. ***