RICHLAND — A program to protect workers from a toxic metal at the nation’s most contaminated nuclear site has a number of weaknesses and could have been implemented more quickly, but it’s an improvement over past practices, a federal report concluded Wednesday.
The U.S. Department of Energy initiated an independent inspection four months ago following workers’ concerns that they have not been adequately protected from beryllium at south-central Washington’s Hanford nuclear reservation.
Beryllium, a light but strong metal, was used during World War II- and Cold War-era plutonium production for nuclear weapons, and dust from the metal remains in some buildings.
The report presents a roadmap for improvements, and the Energy Department embraces the recommendations moving forward, said Ines Triay, the agency’s assistant secretary for environmental management.
“Our actions are going to be proactive,” she said.
The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Today, it is the nation’s most contaminated nuclear site, with about $2 billion spent annually on cleanup.
In addition, roughly $2 billion in federal stimulus dollars has been directed to Hanford to speed cleanup and try to meet deadlines.
Contractors handle the cleanup, while the Energy Department oversees them.
Some Hanford workers have been complaining for years about beryllium dangers at the site. More than 160 workers have been diagnosed with sensitivity to the metal, which restricts where they can work at the site, or chronic beryllium disease, a lung disorder.
Tom Peterson, a former Hanford worker who was diagnosed with the disease in 2003, said the report was excellent but it’s only as good as the paper it’s written on.
“We’ve been here before,” he said. “I’m still a little leery. We have to see where it goes. The commitment is there. The funding? I’ve already heard funding is an issue.”
The DOE’s independent Office of Health, Safety and Security completed the inspection, which evaluated medical surveillance programs at the site and current practices for protecting workers from beryllium hazards. Doctors from regional health facilities and worker safety groups also participated.
The report concluded that the new sitewide program for protecting workers against beryllium exposure, implemented this year, represents an improvement over previous practices. Each contractor previously had addressed beryllium risks independently.
However, the report also identified a number of weaknesses and concluded the program could have been implemented more quickly. Weaknesses included inadequate postings about beryllium-tainted work areas, analysis of newly identified illnesses, and communication about the beryllium program across the site.
Lead inspector Tom Staker noted that several concerns identified in 2003 correlate with those cited in two recent letters to the Energy Department by the Hanford Advisory Board, an advisory board comprising American Indian tribes, worker safety groups and environmental interest groups.
“Resolution of past concerns have not been effective,” Staker said.
About 50 people attended a meeting where the findings were released. Most praised inspectors’ efforts, which included specific recommendations for corrective action.
It’s “about time” for the findings, but unfortunately, the report is too late for some workers, said David Molnaa, president of the Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council.
“These guys have to be kept out of harm’s way, and when there’s nothing left for them to do, they don’t have a job anymore,” he said. “We have 20- and 30-year employees out there who no longer have a job, through no fault of their own, and I’d like to see something done about that.”
Hanford isn’t the first nuclear site managed by the Energy Department where beryllium concerns have been raised. In 2007, federal auditors concluded the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., had failed to do enough to prevent worker exposure to beryllium.
“This review is important enough that we’ll be able to look at it for lessons learned throughout the Department of Energy,” Staker said. “It’s not just limited to Hanford.”
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
