	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. 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. 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. However, DOE acknowledges that its understanding  of contaminants in the vadose zone is limited in many areas 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 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. 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:    Consolidate most groundwater and vadose zone characterization  and cleanup activities under a single project. 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. 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. 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. We reviewed previous work in which we  documented strategies used by high-performing organizations to  implement improvement initiatives.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.