Cost of Refitting Hanford Nuclear Reactor Put at $1.2 Billion by GAO

Congressional investigators said Wednesday that it would cost $1.2 billion to refurbish deteriorating systems at the federal government’s aging nuclear reactor at Hanford, Wash., but that its existing design appears to offer clear safety advantages over a similar nuclear power plant that exploded last April in the Soviet Union.

The General Accounting Office report was released in Washington by Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.), who immediately assailed plans by the U.S. Department of Energy to upgrade the 23-year-old plant as “foolish from an economic standpoint.”

Hatfield said he would attempt to win congressional support for shutting down the reactor before money is spent to extend its operational life to the year 2020. The reactor’s main function is to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. It also generates 850 megawatts of electricity for the Washington Public Power Supply System.

Cost Up to $4 Billion

In response to Hatfield’s statement, the Department of Energy and United Nuclear Industries, which operates the plant under contract, said it would cost between $2 billion and $4 billion to build a new reactor.

“The senator has publicly stated that he wants to terminate weapons production,” said Harold Heacock, program director of United Nuclear Industries’ Chernobyl study group.

The GAO report did not take a position on whether the reactor should be upgraded or closed. The investigation was one of six studies of the reactor ordered after the disastrous explosion near Chernobyl last April 26, which resulted in radioactive contamination on a worldwide scale. Soviet officials say 30 people have died as a result of the accident.

Like the Soviet reactor, the one at Hanford has a graphite core, which moderates the nuclear reaction.

But, GAO investigators said that, for the most part, safety systems at the Hanford reactor appear to offer advantages over what is currently known about Chernobyl. “In summary, we found that many differences exist between (Hanford’s) reactor and the reactor at Chernobyl,” the GOA said in a letter to Hatfield and Rep. James H. Weaver (D-Ore.).

‘Significant’ Differences

Among the more “significant” differences, the GAO said, was the fact that at Chernobyl, an increase in coolant temperature results in an increase in reactor power, a situation that could result in a runaway nuclear chain reaction.

“Many experts believe this situation was a critical element in the progression of the Chernobyl accident,” the report said. In contrast, the GAO said, reactor power decreases when coolant temperature increases at the Hanford reactor, reducing the likelihood of a chain reaction.

Officials of the Department of Energy in Richland, Wash., as well as United Nuclear Industries said Wednesday that they are satisfied with the report.

“The report is a factual analysis of the situation,” said Heacock of United Nuclear Industries.

Heacock added that problems found by the GAO with various components and systems at the Hanford reactor previously had been identified by the DOE and United Nuclear Industries. Corrective actions are either already under way or in the planning stages, he said.

Among GAO’s findings:

- Eighteen percent of the piping in an oil-fired boiler used to produce steam for emergency electrical power generation is “at or below minimum acceptable thickness.” Five of the pipes have failed since Jan. 1. However, there is a second standby boiler.

- Automatic sampling equipment to monitor the purity of water in the reactor’s cooling system has been inoperative. When the purity of the water is degraded, there can be an accelerated corrosion of the cooling system. United Nuclear officials said the samples have been taken manually on a continuing basis for several years. An automatic system is being installed.