DOE Has Developed a Plan to Address Problems With Plutonium That Is Not in Pits

In 1994, both DOE and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board noted safety problems with DOE’s storage of plutonium not in pits. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, House Committee on Commerce, asked us to review DOE’s efforts to stabilize, package, and store its plutonium, including problems the Department has encountered or anticipates in accomplishing these activities, specifically for (1) plutonium that is not in the form of nuclear weapons components, or pits, and (2) plutonium in the form of pits. DOE Is Unlikely to Meet Its Commitment Date for Stabilizing, Packaging, and Storing Its Plutonium That Is Not in Pits

DOE’s activities to stabilize, package, and store its plutonium not in pits are primarily guided by two DOE standards governing plutonium storage and the Department’s implementation plan, which commits the Department to stabilize and package its plutonium metals and oxides for long-term storage by May 2002. Various problems contribute to these delays in meeting milestones, including (1) changes from the technologies originally chosen by Rocky Flats to stabilize plutonium to meet a security requirement; (2) a suspension of plutonium stabilization operations due to safety problems at Hanford; (3) competing priorities for funding, staff, and equipment at Los Alamos; and (4) delays in obtaining a system for stabilizing and packaging plutonium at three sites. Given the inherent dangers of plutonium, such delays result in a continuing risk to workers’ health and safety and increased costs. Although DOE announced its decision to dispose of the excess plutonium, it has not finalized the criteria the plutonium must meet to be acceptable for disposition. Should that occur, the container may not contain the plutonium, thus risking workers’ exposure to it. Currently, DOE has no formal plan or schedules to repackage the remaining 95 percent of its pits. However, according to DOE officials, while a formal decision has not yet been made, the Department is developing a plan, which it intends to issue in April 1998. Because the officials hope to have the pits repackaged before this type of aggressive monitoring becomes necessary, they have decided not to implement such a program. Conclusions

Since 1989, DOE has stored its pits in containers that are not suitable for extended storage. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. We added a footnote to the report quoting DOE’s point that “It must be acknowledged that even after stabilization and packaging, some small level of risk remains associated with handling and storage of plutonium materials.” In addition, we revised the report to clarify that delays result in continuing the existing level of risk to workers’ health and safety by delaying the risk reduction that is achieved by stabilization and packaging activities.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the status of the Department of Energy's (DOE) efforts to stabilize, package and store its plutonium, focusing on: (1) plutonium that is not in the form of nuclear weapons components, or pits; and (2) plutonium in pits.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) although DOE has made some progress in stabilizing its plutonium, it is unlikely to meet its May 2002 target date to have its plutonium that is not in its pits stabilized, packaged, and stored; (2) DOE sites with the majority of this plutonium have experienced many delays and anticipate more in meeting their implementation plan milestones; (3) various problems contribute to these delays, including: (a) changes from the technologies originally chosen to stabilize plutonium residues at Rocky Flats to meet a security requirement; (b) a suspension of plutonium stabilization operations because of safety infractions at Hanford; (c) competing priorities for funding, staff, and equipment at Los Alamos; and (d) delays in obtaining a system for stabilizing and packaging plutonium at three sites; (4) given the inherent dangers of plutonium, such delays result in continuing the existing level of risk to workers' health and safety by delaying the risk reduction that is achieved by stabilization and packaging activities; (5) moreover, because DOE has not yet finalized the criteria the plutonium must meet to be acceptable for the disposition technologies, it is unclear if current activities to stabilize, package, and store the plutonium will be compatible with the means of converting it for disposal; (6) in addition to its delays in stabilizing and packaging its plutonium that is not in pits, DOE is currently storing approximately 10,000 pits in containers that both DOE and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board believe are not suitable for extended storage, thus risking workers' exposure to plutonium; (7) DOE is preparing a plan, which it intends to issue in April 1998, to develop new containers and repackage the remaining 95 percent of the pits; (8) without conducting an analysis of the costs or benefits of the laboratories' recommendation for increased monitoring, DOE decided not to change its existing monitoring program, which formally examines about 30 pits per year; and (9) DOE hopes that it can repackage the pits before enhanced monitoring is necessary.