SAFETY AT FLUOR HANFORD (A) CASE STUDY - PREPARED BY THUNDERBIRD SCHOOL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT

By November of 1997, Fluor Hanford (Fluor) had been the site manager of the Hanford nuclear reservation for a year. The Hanford site had been established as part of the Manhattan Project in the 1940s that gave birth to the atomic bomb. Hanford produced two thirds of U.S. plutonium during the Cold War period. The Hanford site was half the size of Rhode Island and occupied 586 square miles in southeastern Washington State. The production of plutonium for more than 40 years left a huge legacy of chemical and radiological contamination: 80 square miles of contaminated groundwater; 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel stored in underwater basins; 20 tons of plutonium-laced contaminated materials; and 500 contaminated facilities. The cleanup involved a challenging combination of radioactive material handling within an infrastructure constructed in the 1940s and 1950s. The cleanup that began in 1988 was expected to take 30 years or more. Improving safety at Hanford had already proven to be a significant challenge. As the new site manager at Hanford, Fluor Hanford inherited lower- and mid-level managers and thousands of unionized employees, many of whom were second or third generation Hanford employees. These employees had seen many contractors come and go over the years. Some of the managers who had worked with the previous contractor saw Fluor's emphasis on safety as getting in the way of operations. Union-management relations were fractious. Hanford's culture was described as 'production driven-management told everyone what to do, and, if you didn't do it, there were consequences'. Worker involvement in designing and implementing safety programs was negligible. Fluor Hanford also was having trouble satisfying its client, the Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE did not see a clear path forward for performance improvements at Hanford. Clearly, major change was necessary, but how and where should it be implemented?