The state of Washington’s chief overseer for the massive cleanup of the Hanford Site will leave the job this month with a strong sense of accomplishment, but at least a few frustrations as well.
Under Jane Hedges’ watch as the state Department of Ecology’s Nuclear Waste Program manager, the federal government and its contractors have taken significant strides toward the ultimate remediation of the former World War II and Cold War plutonium production installation. The highly contaminated Plutonium Finishing Plant should be razed by the end of this year, and the cleanup of the Columbia River corridor is similarly approaching completion. Fifteen single-shell tanks that once leaked waste into the ground have been emptied under her watch, the material moved into double-shell containers designed to make sure it does not escape. The list goes on.
“Those are all things that I see as being really successful, and I’ve been very proud to be a part of,” Hedges said.
But the project is also decades and tens of billions of dollars from completion, and the state and the Department of Energy are back in court contesting milestones set in their 2010 consent decree for Hanford cleanup. That includes the startup date for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, the facility intended to process up to 56 million gallons of chemical and radioactive waste left over from decades of nuclear weapons work at the Eastern Washington site. Hedges cited the WTP issue as a top source of disappointment during her tenure.
“It is in federal court, it’s in front of the judge. The judge is going to work with a technical panel to understand some of the issues,” Hedges said. “My guess, and I don’t know this because it’s up to a federal court judge, but we anticipate that she will then come back to both of the parties either with a schedule that she imposes, or direction to work to a mutually agreeable schedule. That’s what we believe the outcome will be, but again that is in the hands of the court at this point.”
Hedges’ will retire on Feb. 29. The state has selected a Department of Ecology manager as her interim replacement while it completes its search for a permanent successor.
In an interview with Weapon Complex Monitor the month before she leaves state service, Hedges discussed relations between Washington state and DOE when it comes to Hanford, her experience working with a massive federal agency, and what she would tell her successor.
What is the job of the Department of Ecology’s Nuclear Waste Program manager?
Basically what the job is, is I manage a program of about 70-plus people who oversee the cleanup of Hanford on behalf of the state of Washington. In addition, Hanford is 95 percent of our work, but we also permit four other facilities that treat, store, dispose of mixed radioactive and hazardous waste, so there are some other things. And we do low-level radioactive waste compact work as well for commercial sites in the state of Washington. But the majority is overseeing the Hanford cleanup.
The Nuclear Waste Program that I manage serves as the state’s representative for the Tri-Party Agreement, so I am part of the Department of Ecology, and Ecology is the state agency that oversees environmental issues, and our program then has delegation for overseeing the Tri-Party Agreement as well as for the [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act]-delegated program to the state for Hanford. Basically what it includes are just what you’d think – legal negotiations, approving permits and permit modifications, issuing enforcement orders or monetary penalties, a lot of communication with affected tribes and stakeholders on issues around cleanup, and implementing the state’s policies.
Then there’s an element of national work. There are some national groups that I’m sure you’re familiar with: the National Governors [Association] Federal Facilities Task Force and the State and Tribal Government Working Group, that this position serves as the technical representative on those groups as well. So it’s having a national perspective on issues across the DOE cleanup complex.
Specific to Hanford, what would you say has been the greatest challenge among your responsibilities in overseeing the cleanup?
I think the obvious one has been the ability to get waste out of the aging single-shell tanks in central Hanford, in terms of retrieving the material and getting it treated, because of the delays to the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. So that probably has been the biggest challenge. There are definitely other challenges just in terms of technical abilities to achieve the cleanup that we want to achieve in this unique environment.
Also, I think that infrastructure is a challenge, in that that’s not the state’s regulatory authority but it causes challenges for cleanup. For example, aging water lines break, and water spills into an area that was contaminated down, or the need to put new roofs on old canyons to protect them from any intrusion, that’s a cost. And, again, things that are absolutely necessary but difficult to maintain cleanup while you’re trying to maintain the facility as well.
How much progress would you say has been made in the Hanford cleanup during your tenure?
I actually think a great deal of progress has been made, particularly in the areas of the Columbia River corridor cleanup, which is almost virtually done, the soil and groundwater cleanup there. In particular for me, the groundwater treatment, we have got either brand new groundwater pump-and-treat systems like the one in central Hanford, which is probably the largest pump-and-treatment system I would say in the country, and it’s working very, very well. As well as either new or updated treatment systems along the river. One of the key accomplishments is the fact that we have almost completely gotten chromium out of the river, or at least the low levels that will affect the ecosystem, which was our goal.
Another huge one is the Plutonium Finishing Plant; it’s not done, it’s projected to be slab on grade at the end of the year, but that was by far the most challenging, hazardous building on Hanford, and the work that has been done there by the Hanford workforce is just awesome. They’ve had to use 50-year-old equipment and keep it running, and going into highly hazardous areas safely, so that’s been a major accomplishment.
Retrieval of 15 single-shell tanks has been a great accomplishment, one we would like to see continue. Historically, getting all the weapons-grade plutonium moved off Hanford, so that cleanup would not be inhibited by the security measures that had to be in place. Those are all things that I see as being really successful, and I’ve been very proud to be a part of.
On the other side of the fence, have there been significant setbacks or frustrations that you’ve seen over the last near-decade?
Clearly, the frustration about the inability to get the Waste Treatment Plant up and operating. As you know, the state had threated litigation. We had settled and done a consent decree in 2010 with the schedule that we all agreed to, and then the Department of Energy was unable to do that. So we are in litigation again. The state takes litigation very, very seriously, it’s all the way up to the state’s governor’s office and attorney general to really consider what it means. That has been very challenging. We certainly recognize the technical challenges, but we believe in vitrification, we have seen it work elsewhere, we think we can work though the technical challenges. The state is very supportive of doing the direct-feed of low-activity waste to get some of our waste to started to be treated and turned to glass so that we have some additional space to retrieve those old tanks. I think that probably has been, not surprisingly, the biggest challenge for me.
It’s before the federal court now, but do you have a sense for how the consent decree might be updated through that legal process or through the work with DOE?
It is in federal court, it’s in front of the judge. The judge is going to work with a technical panel to understand some of the issues. My guess, and I don’t know this because it’s up to a federal court judge, but we anticipate that she will then come back to both of the parties either with a schedule that she imposes, or direction to work to a mutually agreeable schedule. That’s what we believe the outcome will be, but again that is in the hands of the court at this point.
What would constitute mutually agreeable for the state?
We’ve submitted a schedule, as has [the Department of] Energy. We, again, would like to see the low-activity waste plant start up not on the 2019 schedule it is right now, but certainly within three years of that, so we can begin making some waste. And then as soon as possible to get the high-level waste and the full pretreatment up and operating so we have the full plant up.
More generally, how has DOE been as a partner in this cleanup program?
You know, DOE has been a good partner in many ways. I certainly believe the local DOE management is committed to cleanup, they want to meet their obligations, both legally and morally. There’s certainly always a tension between regulators and the regulated community. That is inherent in the process. DOE has been hampered in some areas by budget limitations, technical challenges. They’re also a very large federal agency with a lot of processes and procedures that sometimes don’t facilitate good progress.
For example, they recontract the major contracts every five years, and in some cases are looking at lessening that, which in my personal view is very disruptive. It takes a couple years for everything to transfer, for the new contractor to come in and be fully comfortable with their mission. Some of those areas have been frustrating. But as I said, I honestly believe we and EPA and DOE all are partners in this cleanup, we’ve got to get it done, we’re trying to reach the same goal and we need to keep that progress moving forward.
Would you say it’s the technical side primarily that has been to blame for the cost overruns and schedule issues, or are their other contributors?
Certainly the technical issues have played a big part, they have. … I think that in the past there has been some project management issues within the Department of Energy. Certainly budget has also played a part. It’s very costly and there is a lot of work to be done. Our Washington delegation, particularly Senator (Patty) Murray (D-Wash.), they have been phenomenal in their support of Hanford cleanup, and their just really never-ending work to provide a budget that addresses the compliance issues and the cleanup. But there’s tremendous national pressure on Congress for funding in all areas, and we understand that.
Do you have thoughts on what could be done to expedite some of this work or address some of the concerns?
Establishing milestones that are reasonable but also proactive, so there’s an expectation that everyone has to meet. I think continuing to have decisions made, if you will, and agreed to for work, so that if funding or innovative technologies are available that we can move right into those.
We didn’t talk about it earlier, but one of the huge successes was during the ARRA period when a substantial amount of additional funding came to Hanford, and because we had worked together as tri-parties and had decisions made, a tremendous amount of work was done. The Department of Energy should have been used as the poster child for successful ARRA work, because they were able to get a lot done. And at Hanford they did a tremendous amount, shrinking the footprint of the contamination so that we could concentrate on some of those harder areas. So having those decisions made that we agree to with dates, that we can hold to and keep moving to and continue to work to help people understand both in this region what the work is and what needs to be done, as well as nationally, so that we will have the support to get the budget. Those are all things that I think can be done, certainly.
Investing in technology is another one, so that we can address those technological issues we know of now, but also to address issues that we don’t have the technology for, so that we can keep that progress going. That’s another area I think would be helpful.
Are you optimistic that these things will happen?
Let me say I’m hopeful. I think that we will be able to deal with some of our technical issues. I hope that we will be able to put in place realistic milestones that either through the court action for the Waste Treatment Plant and tank retrieval, and through our milestone changes currently under consideration for the central part of Hanford cleanup, that we will have those dates and they will be able to work through them.
Again, continued support by our congressional delegation, I don’t see that changing dramatically unless there’s some unpredictable dramatic change in the folks there, because they are all regionally committed to that. So hopefully the Department of Energy is, and we’re looking across the complex at ways to raise across the board the level of funding, not just Hanford, so that the Environmental Management program can meet their compliance requirements across the country and keep cleanup going.
Looking at the entire picture, what is the environmental and safety situation at Hanford today versus when you started on this job?
I would say that the Department of Energy focuses a great deal on safety. I certainly think that, as I said, there have been improvements made in terms of groundwater treatment that are positive for human health and the environment. There have been a tremendous amount of contaminated soils and buildings removed and put into a safe configuration. We’ve moved the spent fuel off the river, which was a huge, huge risk. Now hopefully the sludge that’s remaining will get moved as well, further protecting the Columbia River.
I think the reactors being put into their safe configuration is another, so I think that there has been. That said, there’s still huge challenges that remain, I mean huge challenges. Again, we’ve got 177 tanks out there, a number of them are single-shell, a goodly number are either known or suspected to have leaked in the past. We’ve one that’s currently suspected or known as a leaker. And one of our double-shell tanks is leaking. So there’s still material moving down through the vados zone, the area between the groundwater and the surface of the ground, toward groundwater that we need to address so that we can get that groundwater cleaned back up to a safe level.
So there are some major challenges. There are challenges with worker safety in terms of the vapor issues having to do with tanks, that we need to be very cognizant of making sure that the workforce stays safe as well.
As you leave, what will or what would you tell your successor about the job and what to expect?
I would tell them that they need to celebrate their victories as well as concentrate on the things they need to improve. Because often I think with huge jobs like Hanford we look at how long it’s going to take to get it all cleaned up, and that at times can be frustrating and disheartening. But when you actually sit down and look at what has been accomplished and continues to be accomplished, to celebrate those.
We have an amazing, amazing group of people that work for the state here. I can’t say how much I admire them – they come every day, they work hard to move this cleanup forward, and I’m sure to them many times it seems like one step forward and three back, or just baby steps, but they continue to be out there encouraging, pushing, monitoring, making sure things are safe. I think that’s what I would say to whoever succeeds me in this job, is to keep that goal of getting this cleaned up and protecting the river and just continue every day to work on any method to get that done.
