The Nuclear Regulatory Commission held a public meeting earlier this month to answer questions about a congressionally mandated review of Hanford's Waste Treatment Plant, known locally as the "vit plant."

The vit plant is operated and regulated by the Department of Energy. The NRC regulates privately owned, commercial nuclear generation plants and has limited oversight authority over DOE nuclear sites.

The meeting was a curious affair for one big reason: The NRC presentation failed to address the more than three years the commission spent at the vit plant in the early days of design, when British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd., was the contractor for the "privatized" project.

The NRC presence at that time included more than 20 full-time staff reviewing every safety and quality aspect of the design and proposed construction.

When the NRC left - with the changing of the contract to Bechtel and the end of the privatization model - it wrote a devastating report called NUREG 1747.

In short, the NRC stated that the risk of a severe accident resulting in the release of lethal quantities of radiation to the surrounding population was 2.4 percent per year of operation - translating to a cumulative risk of a 50/50 chance over the expected 28 years of vit plant operations.

The NRC also documented its discomfort with the DOE regulatory model, and expressed grave doubts that the necessary rigor and oversight would be applied to ensure safe operation of the facility.

In the six years since the NRC report, the vit plant has been swamped with design defects, engineering failures, quality assurance breakdowns and technical showstoppers that have driven the cost of the facility from a projected $4.6 billion to more than $12 billion, and a delay of operation from 2011 to 2019.

The question currently pending is: When will the next shoe drop?

We can ill-afford additional delays. Does anyone really believe that the underground waste tanks will hold until 2052 - the currently planned end date for vitrification - much less until 2060 or beyond?

We need a safe and effective waste treatment process. The vit plant is the best plan we have, but it needs an outside regulator to ensure its safety and effectiveness.

Which leads us back to the NRC.

The NRC seems to be of two minds about whether it should assume a regulatory role at Hanford's Waste Treatment Plant. Clearly, it was downplaying any notion of true oversight at the recent Richland meeting.

According to the NRC, they are just preparing a report, and envision no future role for themselves afterward. Given the groundwork of NUREG 1747 and the desperate need for outside regulation of DOE, an opportunity is being missed here.

I would argue that the only thing that will save the Waste Treatment Plant from certain extinction is the NRC.

The NRC is an independent regulatory agency, separate from the Department of Energy and with a long history of regulating commercial nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities and materials.

The NRC has a good starting background for review of the plant because of its early involvement there.

As the largest, first-of-a-kind process handling large volumes of the most hazardous and toxic waste in the country, safety risks are compounded by inadequate waste characterization data and a lack of processing experience with actual wastes.

Given these knowledge gaps and risk assumptions, design and construction decisions require a conservative approach to guard against major uncertainties, which result in a higher margin of safety and public confidence.

Given the large risks involved, Congress should authorize the NRC to license the construction and operation of the Hanford vitrification plant; and certify the safety of stored high-level radioactive wastes before they are processed in the vit plant.

NRC oversight would lead to a better design and therefore better integrity of the plant. The owner-operator should not be self-regulating on a project of this magnitude.

* Tom Carpenter is executive director of Hanford Challenge.