ML20132H064

Trip Rept of 961204 & 05 Visit to Hanford Advisory Board Meeting in Portland,Or Re Tank Waste Remediation Sys Privatization.Agenda,Encl

ML20132H064
Person / Time
Site:	07003091
Issue date:	12/23/1996
From:	Bryce A NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Pierson R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
NUDOCS 9612270127
Download: ML20132H064 (6)

Text

l.-

' Q (E

~70-SON

./

ye -- UNITED STATES l

j j

2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4001 December 23, 1996

%*****/

MEMORANDUM TO: Robert C. Pierson, Chief Special Projects Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS dC THRU: Michael Tokar, Section Chiet 7,v TWRS Section b ,

Special Projects Branchy ( p Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS FROM: Amy L. Bryce s TWRS Section Special Projects Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety '

and Safeguards, NMSS

SUBJECT:

TRIP REPORT, HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD MEETING, PORTLAND, OREGON Special Projects Branch staff member, Amy Bryce, attended the Hanford Advisory Board meeting on December 4 and 5 in Portland, Oregon. The agenda for this meeting is attached. A description of the purpose and history of the Hanford Advisory Board, a list of members and alternates, and Board accomplishments for FY96 are included in the Hanford Advisory Board Progress Report FY96, a copy of which is available in my office (T8D10).

The Hanford Advisory Board (Board) sets its own agenda, and provides consensus advice to the Department of Energy (DOE). Although DOE is committed to " listening" to the Board, they are not obligated to follow the Board's advice. Audience / board member opinion at the meeting, however, suggested that the Board's advice does have an impact on decision-making at DOE. Based on discussion during the meeting the Board was very informed about current issues affecting Hanford.

Board members were not optimistic about the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS)/Privatization. The Board is in favor of vitrification for storing the tank waste; however, the Board was highly critical of DOE budgeting and management practices. The Board did not support privatization because they believed that the high cost, high visibility project also had a high potential for failure. Several comments from members of the 9612270127 961223 -

[DR ADOCK 07003091 em @

240147

( . . - .

._ . - ~ - _ .

R.C. Pierson Board, DOE, and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) indicated that the l

failure of privatization would have severe consequences. With the exception of losing the large sums of money directed toward the privatization effort, no commenter was more specific about the consequences.

The Budaet: DOE Richland's (DOE RL) budget for FY97 has not been finalized. The OMB l has appropriated funding to the DOE Headquarters, but the money has not otherwise been

! distributed among DOE. As of November 21,1996, DOE RL anticipates a budget shortfall .

of approximately 38 million for FY97. Reasons for the shortfallinclude unexpected costs 1 encountered during the transition from Westinghouse to Fluor Daniel, and an j i underestimation of overhead expenses. The Board was concerned about how funding i levels would be adjusted to account for the shortfall, particularly when the shortfall was l anticipated to either lead to a reduction in work scope, or affect an area where the work scope was still evolving.

TWCS privatization expects to face a shortfall on the order of 15 million for FY97. The

~

Board was concerned about the high budget allocated to TWRS, and the source of future l TWRS funding. The Board was interested in how allocadons for TWRS willimpact funding l for other clean-up projects on the site, e.g., reactors on the river,100 Area ,

decontamination, particularly if the budget is flat for FY98. At this date, TWRS has a

" guaranteed" 427 million dollars for FY98. The money is "BA," which means it is an authorized obligation rather than "BO" or a cost and spend. Budget cuts may lead to a reduction in the work scope of TWRS. For example, several members of Ecology were afraid that the development of an attemative pathway and additional subsurface characterization would not be funded as originally planned for FY97.

l yVork Scone: The work scope is defined as the work to be completed under a given contract. The Board criticized that under ideal conditions contractors at Hanford have been requesting reductions in the work scope. For example, one Board member commented that the prime contractor at Hanford has a high budget for the work scope, an inordinately high manager to worker ratio (2:1), yet has still not been able to complete the work. DOE-RL and contractor representatives disagreed on the manager / worker ratio, but admitted that the numbers were open to interpretation. The Board was concerned that due to budget constraints stakeholders may end up with very little return for every dollar spent.

l Several Board members commented that DDE-RL frequently loses sight of " Big Picture" issues, which leads to inappropriate spending. For example, some funding for TWRS is being spent to evaluate leaks from the single sided tanks. It was the opinion of the Board that it would be fiscally wiser to assume that all tanks are leaking, and apply the funds to finish moving waste from the single sided tanks to double sided tanks.

Contracts and Contractors: New contracts at Hanford have been written to pay cost plus l

an award fee. The Board was concerned about two aspects of the new contracts: 1) The contracts do not clearly define the reference point to pay out the award fee. The l

R.C. Piirsin .

reference point, or the baseline operating cost, is subject to the work scope and other changes such as contractor transitions. If the work scope changes, the baseline moves.

i The board strongly believes that DOE RL needs a well developed work scope that is stable. ,

2) There is no motivation for reducing operating costs, which could be important if the l budget does not grow. I Additionally, in FY97 there will be 13 separate contractors on site. Several of the contracts will go up for bid every two years. The Board expressed concern that ,

inconsistencies may arise from different health and safety programs, especially if several l training programs exist. The Board is also concerned that the short contract period will result in a perpetual bidding cycle, effectively shortening the work period. This is supported by the unexpectedly long and expensive transition between Westinghouse and Fluor Daniel.

l The Board had completed their preliminary review of the privatization contracts, and they I were extremely concerned about LMAES' contract. According to several Board members,  !

LMAES has negotiated a " sweet" deal. LMAES can renegotiate their fee at the end of Part  ;

A, and if DOE does not commit to the renegotiated fee LMAES is able to claim that DOE '

terminated the contract, e.g., leave with the original payment. (Attempts to clarify this in the contract were not successful due to the legalese language used in the pertinent section of the contract.) The Board was concerned that LMAES' purpose for bidding was access to the 27 million Part A fee, and that LMAES was not a serious contender for Part B or Phase 11. As a result, the Board believed that DOE may be reduced to a single technology .

at the end of Part A.

Miscellaneous TWRS Information: There was some concern that another environmental impact statement (EIS) would be required to determine the closure status on the tanks. At this time, the EIS has been postponed to a later date.

Attachment:

Mtg Agenda Docket 70-3091 cc: E. W. Brach, FCSS E. Q. Ten Eyck, FCSS M. R. Knapp, NMSS C. J. Paperiello, NMSS DISTRIBUTION:

Docket 70-3091 NRC File Center.. f PUBLIC NMSS r/f FCSS r/f SPB r/f RWescott RShewmaker JSpraul OFC SPB C nSPB 6 ,SP,B SPB SPB NAME ABryce:ij kAHoadley hNokar  !

DATE / /96 /2. /b/96 h/1}96 / /96 / /96 l C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSUREN = NO COPY I OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

11 27 96 12:1u C$u9 376 1563 DOE u.44D _i i 1,1/21/199G 14:41 206-343-8448 ggjymy g -

~

. i e, s.

, 1 2

t HANFORD ADVISORY BOARD Meeting December 4 5,1996 $-

Red Llos Lloyd Center ~J l i

1000 NE Multnomaak '

• Portland, OR Phone: 503-2816111 Fax: 503-284-4513 $r.'

w DRAFT i- j ,

t. -

AGENDA TEME ACENDA ITEM i  ?

ITEM NO. M.  !# . . ,

l W l

I WEDNESDAY. DECEMBER 4,1996 __

h N' I 8:30 mm Social Time y

1. 9.00 mm Woleome, InWnes, and Anpa==a======, Chair's Agene J '

Overview and Goals for the Mastins 2 915 am Approve Novessber Meeting $smanary Draf November Afreeing summan ,

3. 9:20 am FY'97 Badget Allocations Update by DOE on FY'97 Budget Allocations and Integrated Priority List Board Action: DucuuWe Only 10.30 am Break 4, 10,45 am landendonal Centrole . Frernas ofIssues faam Draft Adwce to be November Board Masting, Presannoon of DreA Advice fazed from Health. Safety, and Wasic Meneseannt Committee (Ben Floyd)

BoardAeden. Discuuum 11:45 am Public Comaseet 12:00 pm Leach

5. 1:00 pm Columbia River Cosoprehensive Impose Assessment - Drg/t Adneeto br Suramary of Recommendations ibe PW II Asassement Faud (repsesentanve of Stearms Comanese); Perspectives of Environmental Restoration Committes, Presentation of DraA Advice (Ralph Pett)

Board Action: Discusion Only 6 1:45 pm Ramesers on the River . Bnefing on stesus of TPA Drq% Adrice to be Negoustions en Disposition of the Reactors (EPA or fared Ecology representative); Perspectives of the Environmental Restoration Ceminas, Presentation of Dran Advice on 105C Interim Safe Storeys (Gordon Rogers) l Board Action: Docursion )

l l

I l

. . . .._ ._. ._ _ . .- . _ _ - . - - - . . - - - -- . . - . = - - . . . .

11 :7 d 1 .11 UN 4 6 IN e1 ,,, a .

11/21/19 % 14:41 2 %-243-eoas gyypqm 3

TIME AGENDA ITEM PAC "T J AGENDA MATERIAI. l

]

4 ITEM NO. ..

1

7. 2:30 pm Project Hanford Mannyment Centreet - Promotatsoe DroA Advice to be of Drah Advice from Dollars and Sense Committee Taxed (Ocrty Poller) l i

j Board Artica Discusslose '

3:30 pm Bronk i 3.45 pm Historic Preservarnea Presentaion by DOE on Draf Advice to be f 8

Programmatic Agreement for Samanlining Historic Taxed l Preservarion Reviews and Public involvement Activstws l (Jim Rasmussen); Perspectives of Health, $efsty, ansi

' Wasa Management Committee; Presentalon of DreA 1 l

Advice (Pam Brown)

Beasd Actles: Discorsfose f

' 4:45 pm Psblie Co-t 5:00 pm Recens ibr Day l

ThoRSDAY, DECEMBER 5,1996 -

9, 8:30 em Emergsag Insom la FY'97. Proustation by 17A agencies on near-term issues (Randy Smith, Den Silver, 1 Jonn Wagoner); discussion of Board tapeos/iseume for FY'97 l

to 9:15 em FY'99 Badget Process sad Timeltme . Presentation by DOE on the Prosess and Schedule for Properation of the FY'99 Budget and Integration with the Tea Year Plan and Strategic Plan (Alice Murphy); Discussion of Board '

Meeting Schedule to Correspond with the Process Board Asties: Discusslost Only j

l. 9:30 am BenedAceioat lastinational Controle - Act on Proposed Advice - m,g 4,. .e. ,q, (Agenda Imm 4)

Colombia Bher Comprokseelve Impnet Assessment -

Act on Proposed Advice (Agenda item 5) 10:30 am Break 10 45 am Reactors on the River . Act on Proposed Advice (Agenda Item 6)

Project mehrd Managemoet Centrust . Act on Proposed Advice (Agenda !!aun 7) 11:45 em Public Conseest 12:00 pm Lunch I

i j

11 :? 96 12 11 35u8 J 76 1 FJ int tusu s e 3 11/21/1995 14:41 306-343-0440 DWIMISSLES pt.cc ec )

..' . i 1

Abt.NDA ITEM PACL T '

I AGENDA TIME MATERIAL ITEM NO. __

7 100 pm Hinteric Pressevation . Act on Proposed Advice (Agenda lien 8) i 12, 1:30 pm National Equity Dialogue . Updens on ibe November Meeting on the National Dialogue (Mcrilyn Reeves. Jeff l l

Breckel) 13, 2 00 pm Tank Wesse Remediat6os Systsen - Sa==ary of the Privariannon Contracts. F ,- "a. sad Check Points in the Contraces (B(Il Teylor); Plans to Papere a Suppiesnantary EIS on TWRS (DOE representative);

Discussionof 7 , % from Heshh. Saisty, sad Weste Mannesment Committes and Dolles and Sasse Commiese: Perspaceives of Ecology (Mike Wilson) l Board Assins: Discsosion only 100 pm Brunk 14 1;15 pm Possible Updsess

. TPA Negotatioris on Spent Fus!

. DoowpstionaL% dical Recompets by l

DOE  !

. PHMC Drat Es&H Plan Fluor Daniel Hanford ESAH Counci!

l 1

. Decision Time 6ame on FFT7 Option for Tritium Production

. PHMC workforce Rashsnrr.an: and ?. ' dat== .

DOE w ve (Alice Mmphy)

. Intsregency Agreements

. TPA Community Relations Plan 15, 4:15 pm Beeed Administrative Matsers

. Meeting Schedule and 1 arm'

. New Member Oricatetson l

. FY'97 Board Budget

. Board Manbership l 4:45 pm Public Comment 5:00 pm Adjeers i