Retaining Hanford Options Worth The Costs, Pena Says Energy Secretary Defends Cleanup Plans

Energy Secretary Federico Pena said Thursday he’s not sure it will make sense ultimately, but it’s worth spending tens of millions of dollars to keep alive the option of producing tritium at Hanford’s Fast Flux Test Facility.

Pena also defended administration proposals to spend $1 billion to contract out to private companies responsibility for cleaning up nuclear waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state and other DOE sites.

Testifying before the House National Security subcommittee on military procurement, he assured Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., that the cleanup budget would not be tapped to finance restart of the FFTF.

“That is my understanding, that we are not going to take money out of cleanup to fund FFTF,” Pena said.

The new energy secretary, who succeeded Hazel O’Leary earlier this year, said the administration is pursuing a “dual track approach” to tritium production for nuclear weapons, considering either a commercial accelerator or a nuclear reactor.

A decision is to be made by the end of 1998.

“As part of that dual track process, the department has opted to keep the FFTF in standby - to not allow it to be a third option, but to be potentially a supplement to the dual track,” Pena said.

Pena said the administration would be preparing a supplemental request for money to keep FFTF in standby condition. Estimates of that cost have ranged from $60 million to $90 million.

The DOE’s Savannah River reactor in South Carolina has been the favored producer of tritium and lawmakers there have expressed concern about the possibility of spreading some of the work to the Hanford reactor.

“One of the things we’ve done well for 40 years is tritium,” Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Pena Thursday.

“Do you believe the FFTF is a reasonable expenditure of $80 million or $90 million? Do you think that is a wise insurance policy to be pursuing?” he asked the secretary.

“Congressman, we don’t know yet,” Pena said.

“That is the basis of the analyses we are doing now. I think the decision by Secretary O’Leary to at least keep it as part of the overall strategy is the correct approach to take to at least allow us to evaluate it and then make a decision as to whether that option makes sense or not,” Pena said.

Graham responded, “I appreciate your dual track. I don’t want it to be an eight-lane highway. I’m a little concerned we are getting off track.”

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the subcommittee, said he is among lawmakers skeptical of the proposal to spend $1 billion on the privatization effort - up from $300 million in the current budget year.

“I need to be convinced this is a path we need to move down at this time,” Hunter said.

“You’ve got a lot of money in the bill and a lot of us are anxious to get at it,” he said.

Smith, a freshman member of the panel, also raised questions about the effort.

One of the biggest pieces of the privatization plan is a proposed $427 million for treatment of high-level waste at Hanford.

“It’s a lot of money to invest to find out if somewhere down the line it is going to work out,” Smith said.

“I think there is a sneaking suspicion that if it doesn’t work out and doesn’t save money, somehow, some way the taxpayer is going to end up making the private company whole,” he said.

Pena said private companies would be accountable and that they have indicated a willingness to participate as long as the incentives are high enough to warrant the risk.

He acknowledged he too had questions about the program, but is confident the incentive-based contracts will pay off in the long run.

As former transportation secretary, he said he utilized a unique set of incentives in paying contractors to clear highways damaged by California earthquakes in recent years.

“Nobody thought it could be done. Contractors worked 22 hours a day nonstop and got those highways open,” Pena said.

“Over the 10 or 25 years of this contract, can we assure the taxpayer dollars will actually be wisely used and show savings compared to the old way of doing business? Our preliminary judgment is yes.”