Part 2
In Part 1, we covered the basics of the 2022 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule, and Cost Report (Lifecycle Report). The report is a snapshot of cleanup today. The scope, schedule, and cost that form the foundation of the report are constantly changing—making it difficult to draw broad conclusions. In Part 2, we'll cover some limitations of the Lifecycle Report and Hanford Challenge's concerns about how USDOE uses the report.
Limitations:
The first limitation of the Lifecycle Report is the estimated schedule. The report projects that Hanford cleanup may cost from $300.2 to $640.6 billion. While the cost of cleanup includes low-range and high-range estimates, the same range of estimates isn't provided for the schedule. Undoubtedly, the schedule will stretch out far into the future if certain cleanup activities don't go according to plan or if cleanup funding levels do not increase. For example, if the Waste Treatment Plant experiences more startup or operation issues, this would add years (maybe decades) to the current schedule. Yet, the Lifecycle Report doesn't reflect these schedule uncertainties, which is a serious shortcoming. The report should take these time range uncertainties into consideration by including a margin of error.
Another shortcoming of the Lifecycle Report is the assumption that in FY 2023, $1.2 billion will be spent on the construction of the Pretreatment Facility, which is paused indefinitely. USDOE paused construction of the Pretreatment Facility and allocated just $20 million in FY 2022 towards its ongoing preservation. Basically, it's oxidizing and deteriorating in the middle of the Central Plateau.
Cost of Tank Waste Cleanup Activities by Fiscal Year, Photo Credit: 2022 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule, and Cost Report
USDOE has no short-term plans to begin construction on the Pretreatment Facility. Therefore, the Lifecycle Report misrepresents what activities USDOE plans for the Pretreatment Facility in the coming years. This limitation of the report inflates the estimated yearly cost of cleanup for near-term fiscal years, while underestimating the cost for long-term fiscal years. It also causes the public to assume that the Pretreatment Facility construction will occur sooner than what is realistically possible, and doesn’t address the elephant in the room, which is that the Pretreatment Facility will more likely than not, never open at all.
Hanford Challenge Concerns:
The Lifecycle Report is a document developed by USDOE. However, Hanford Challenge is concerned that the USDOE local field offices aren't using the document to advocate for more Hanford cleanup funding. For example, the projected cleanup cost for FY 2022 was between $3-5 billion, according to the Lifecycle Report. However, for the FY 2022 budget request, USDOE field offices only asked for $2.5 billion*. This is clearly insufficient and USDOE cannot claim ignorance, because their own report outlines the estimated cost of cleanup by fiscal year. *We note that the budget formation process is complex and we do not have the local field office request, only the President’s budget, due to the current lack of transparency in sharing those numbers. However, the President’s budget should be informed by the local office request which goes through the Office of Management and Budget and then to the President.
Year after year, USDOE asks for less money than what is actually needed to fund cleanup priorities. The timeline extends every year that the cleanup receives less money than is actually needed, and the cost to complete cleanup increases.
One concern is that as cleanup gets pushed further and further out, tanks that are already aging and leaking will deteriorate and leak more frequently—leaving the soil and groundwater irreparably contaminated.
Another concern is that this report will be used to advocate for an alternative and less protective cleanup strategy, or more plainly put “cleanup on the cheap.” The cost estimates are staggering and are unquestionably going to increase. The timeframe is long and will get longer. In order to counter this, USDOE may look for shortcuts to save time and money—shortcuts that will gravely endanger human health and the environment.
One example of a shortcut USDOE is trying to implement is grouting tank waste. It is well known that vitrifying (immobilizing in glass) tank waste is more protective and is a proven method for storing radioactive waste safely for a long time. Grout on the other hand, is being pushed by USDOE as a "faster, better, and cheaper" option. However, life-cycle cost estimates show glass is competitive or cheaper than grout. Furthermore, each batch of waste must be tested to develop the correct grout recipe. This ends up being a lengthy, time-consuming process. Finally, grouting radioactive tank waste does not provide long-term protection of human health and the environment, because radionuclides are not immobilized in grout over time and can leach out into the environment. Vitrification is still the best option. Yet, if USDOE believes that grout will speed up the cleanup process and cost less money, it may take that disastrous shortcut.
Instead of feeling paralyzed by the figures in the Lifecycle Report, USDOE should feel galvanized to stand behind the numbers and ask for what is needed from the Office of Budget and Management and Congress. Hanford cleanup isn't something that can be swept under the rug and ignored because it's too costly and takes too long. Nor is it a good idea to take shortcuts and conduct an incompetent cleanup of the most radioactive site in the Western hemisphere. It is best to tackle the big projects and spend the necessary money, in order to decrease the total cost of cleanup and ensure a safe and effective cleanup that protects future generations.
A public comment period on the 2022 Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule, and Cost Report is currently open. Email your comments on the report to Lcssc@rl.gov before midnight on Friday, April 29.
This material is funded through a Public Participation Grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The content was reviewed for grant consistency, but is not necessarily endorsed by the agency.