GAO report: Over $310 billion to go - highlighting major EM projects and operations
Cleanup to be completed around 2081
ECA Staff | 5/16/2022
|
|
|
On May 4, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released an eye-opening report quoting over $310 billion as the total cost of completing cleanup at the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management’s (EM) major sites. Of this total, $180.5 billion is expected for cleanup completion at the Hanford Site alone. The report reminds us of the challenges ahead and how much work still needs
to be completed at the sites in the near term and long-term.
The report only covers known cleanup issues and does not address or identify areas/sites that EM is still characterizing, nor does it address the unknown of waste disposal. There is currently no plan for a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain or for interim storage of Defense high-level waste in EM’s estimates. Many of the largest sites cannot be cleaned up without a disposition pathway for high-level waste, indicating that the total cleanup figure and the
estimated time frames will likely be even higher. The report also highlights that the current completion schedule for all EM work will last until 2081 – nearly 60 years from now – assuming that the funding is available.
Eleven EM Sites Have an Ongoing Operations Activity with a Lifecycle Cost of at Least $1 Billion
According to EM officials, as of September 2021, EM was managing 76 operations activities at its then-16 sites. GAO found that there are 11 EM sites that have an ongoing operations activity with a life-cycle cost of at least $1 billion each, and selected for detailed review the operations activity with the highest life-cycle cost at each of these 11 sites. The currently known life-cycle costs for these 11 operations activities range from $1 billion (Moab) to $180.5 billion (Hanford), according to EM officials.
|
|
|
|
EM currently manages DOE’s radioactive and hazardous waste cleanup program across 15 active sites, but the report uses data reflecting 16 sites including Brookhaven National Laboratory, where work was completed earlier this year.
EM divides its cleanup work into capital asset projects – which have a defined start and end point and can include the construction of new facilities for treating and disposing of waste – and operations activities, which include reoccurring facility or environmental operations, as well as activities that are project-like, with defined start and end dates.
GAO found that most projects were expected to be completed within initial cost and schedule estimates. However, officials at several projects that experienced cost overruns and schedule delays cited staffing shortages as a contributing factor. In addition, the life-cycle estimates for cleanup operations were frequently out of date, and DOE was in the process of implementing a new policy to require annual updated estimates.
The report also provides information on each EM site and summaries of the selected EM projects and operations activities at the sites on which the report was based.
EM’s Active Cleanup Sites
EM has estimated the life-cycle cost and schedule for completing the cleanup work at each of its 15 active cleanup sites, which, according to EM officials, includes the estimated cost of future cleanup and costs already incurred. EM also annually updates the estimated cost for future cleanup as part of calculating DOE’s environmental liability.
The image below shows the cleanup costs and activities at EM’s active cleanup sites (and Brookhaven National Laboratory).
EM’s 15 Active Capital Asset Projects
According to EM data, as of December 2020, EM was actively managing 23 capital asset projects. Of these 23 projects, 15 had reached at least the critical decision 1 milestone (approved alternative selection and cost range) and had an estimated total project cost of $100 million or greater, with total project costs ranging from $127 million to $16.8 billion. Most of these 15 projects involved ongoing cleanup work in one of three areas: treatment and disposal of
radioactive liquid waste, demolition of excess facilities, or waste disposal.
Most Capital Asset Projects are Performing within Baseline Estimates, but EM Faces Challenges Measuring Operations Activities’ Performance
Based on the review of EM’s 15 largest capital asset projects and 11 selected operations activities, GAO made the following observations:
Observation 1: Nine of EM’s largest capital asset projects were completed or are expected to be completed within their initial baseline cost and schedule estimates.
Of the 15 EM capital asset projects reviewed, 13 had progressed far enough to have established cost and schedule baselines, and nine are expected to be completed within those baselines. However, the other four are expected to exceed estimates.
Of the four projects that are not expected to be completed within their baselines, the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) project and the Plutonium Finishing Plant project have completed the baseline change proposal process, and EM has approved updated cost and schedule estimates for these two projects.
EM officials stated that two projects at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) —the Safety Significant Confinement Ventilation System (SSCVS) and the Utility Shaft—will not be completed within their baselines, and baseline change proposals are under review for both projects.
Observation 2: EM did not have sufficient staffing capacity to properly manage three capital asset projects, two of which are expected to overrun their cost and schedule baselines.
Three capital asset projects—two at WIPP and one at the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) —experienced issues during either their design or construction phases that were, in part, due to the capacity of federal and contractor staff, according to EM officials.
GAO has previously reported that the Carlsbad Field Office, which oversees WIPP, had experienced staffing shortages for multiple years, and an EM document cited this problem as a factor contributing to problems with the SSCVS project. The flaws in the Utility Shaft project were also attributed to a limited number of staff with sufficient experience at the Carlsbad Field Office.
The Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility project at ORR encountered bedrock and soils problems during construction of the foundations of the project’s two main buildings. EM officials said that the project staff did not have the necessary technical expertise to address these problems, so outside contractors were brought in with the necessary technical experience.
Observation 3: EM has not completed updates to life-cycle estimates for operations activities, and prior data have limitations, which impacts EM’s ability to accurately measure operations activities’ performance.
A recent EM protocol requires sites to update their life-cycle estimates for operations activities annually as part of a broader process for maintaining the overall life-cycle cost and schedule estimates for completing cleanup at each site. Officials at 10 of the 11 sites reviewed told GAO that they were in the process of updating their cost and schedule estimates for their operations activities.
The EM sites included in the report had not yet completed new estimates using the process established in the new protocol. Several of the estimates that GAO collected had not been updated in several years, though there have been significant changes to the conditions at certain sites. For example, the estimate for the operations activity at WIPP has not been updated since 2013 and EM officials stated that the estimate does not take into account how operations at the
site have changed following a radiological release in 2014.
In 2019, GAO reported that the tools EM uses to measure contractors’ performance on operations activities do not provide a clear picture of performance for EM leadership, Congress, and other stakeholders. EM’s ability to have the information EM needs to assess the performance of cleanup work managed as operations activities will depend, in part, on whether updates to the cost and schedule estimates for all operations activities are completed in accordance with
EM’s protocol.
Observation 4: EM officials at multiple sites identified examples of ways in which current and future EM cleanup funding could affect cleanup costs.
Examples of scenarios in which funding increases or shortfalls could have significant impacts on the costs for completing cleanup work were given for Hanford, Portsmouth, ORR, and Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
At Hanford, EM officials stated that annual appropriations are not sufficient to meet certain legal requirements for high-level waste treatment. Various analyses indicate that achieving certain milestones for the high-level waste and pretreatment facilities are improbable given the imbalance of reasonably anticipated congressional appropriations and the current anticipated funding requirements to complete the WTP project. EM officials also said that the Hanford
Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report forecasts a significant increase in life-cycle cost and schedule for completing the cleanup of the entire Hanford Site.
EM officials at the Portsmouth Site stated that funding to support the timely transition of experienced contractors from one decontamination or demolition project to the next is not always available when work on one project is completed. As a result, some of the experienced workforce has to be demobilized and is potentially lost to other work. In this case, EM will likely incur additional costs to transition a contractor to other projects once funds become
available.
EM officials at both ORR and INL stated that the life-cycle cost and schedule estimates for site operations activities are directly dependent on the schedule for completing the cleanup activities they are supporting. For example, if additional funding were prioritized for completing deactivation and decommissioning of excess facilities at ORR, the cost for that work would likely decrease, as the schedule could be accelerated. This would also likely reduce the
life-cycle cost for the operations activity with the highest estimated cost because EM would likely shorten the period it had to maintain surveillance and maintenance activities, according to EM officials.
Observation 5: The extent of cost increases for EM capital asset projects and operations activities due to COVID-19 are not fully known.
According to EM officials at multiple sites, contractors have tracked the costs incurred from implementing safety measures to address COVID-19, and EM had reimbursed contractors for some of these costs. EM officials interviewed at several sites told GAO that EM incurred other costs as a result of COVID-19, such as costs from new sanitization programs, installing new workspaces for social distancing, and higher commodity prices, and that the full extent of these other
costs is not yet known. Additionally, a COVID-19 reemergence leading to a return to minimum on-site work is possible.
ECA encourages all members to review the full report. Additional information from the report, including site-specific details, will also soon be available in a forthcoming cleanup guide resource on the ECA
webpage.
|
SAVE OUR DATES
September 21-23, 2022
NEW VENUE: CRYSTAL GATEWAY MARRIOTT IN ARLINGTON, VA!
We are pleased to host the 2022 National Cleanup Workshop at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, VA. Join us to discuss a new era of cleanup success. Hear from senior DOE officials, local government officials, and industry leaders about DOE's cleanup priorities, the future of the workforce, and more.
Additional information on registration and hotel room blocks will be available in the coming weeks. We look forward to seeing you in September!
|
SAVE OUR DATES
August 3-5, 2022
Salt Lake City Marriott University Park
Recognizing the opportunity to address goals shared broadly among U.S. Department of Energy program offices and in frontline communities across the federal nuclear complex, the Energy Communities Alliance will host the ECA Forum: Hosting New Nuclear Development on August 3-5,
2022 at the Salt Lake City Marriott University Park.
|
HEARINGS THIS WEEK
Thursday, May 19 at 9:30am ET - The Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY2023 budget request and future years defense program for the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration. Livestream here.
|
|
|
|
Why DOE wants $463 million for WIPP
Carlsbad Current-Argus | 5/12/2022
Federal nuclear waste managers are hoping for a $42.7 million bump for next year to fund continued operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) nuclear waste repository near Carlsbad, NM.
The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) recently-published funding request for its Office of Environmental Management (EM) included $462.8 million for the DOE’s Carlsbad Field Office in Fiscal Year 2023 to fund its ongoing activities at the WIPP site, an increase of about 10 percent compared to last year’s total of about $420.1 million.
At the WIPP site about 26 miles east of Carlsbad, transuranic (TRU) nuclear waste, made up of mostly contaminated clothing materials and equipment, is disposed of via its burial in a salt deposit about 2,000 feet underground.
For Fiscal Year 2022, running from Oct. 1, 2021 to Sept. 30, the DOE reported WIPP was accepting 14 shipments a week of waste from DOE sites across the country and the added funding would aid the facility in ramping up to 17 shipments a week in FY 2023.
Waste disposal operations made up the biggest chunk of the DOE’s funding request for the WIPP site, at about $363.3 million, marking an increase of $481,000 from last year, which the DOE argued was needed to increase shipments of waste brought to the site.
The DOE also asked Congress to increase funding for various infrastructure projects at the facility the agency said were needed to improve underground ventilation, and continued ground control operations.
An about $200 million rebuild of WIPP’s ventilation known as the Safety Significant Confinement Ventilation System (SSCVS) was expected to be completed in 2025 to more than triple available airflow for underground workers and allow mining and emplacement to occur simultaneously.
In its FY 2023 request, the DOE asked for about $59 million for continued work on the SSCVS and $25 million for the shaft.
“Waste Isolation Pilot Plant operations are impacted by the capability of the current ventilation system to support waste emplacement and simultaneous mining activities,” read the budget request.
Funding would also support the shift to emplacing waste in Panel 8, the final area at the WIPP site permitted for disposal.
Through its upcoming permit renewal application, the DOE also hoped to add two more panels for disposal to make up for space lost during a 2014 accidental radiological release that contaminated parts of the underground.
“In FY 2023, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant will work to obtain regulatory approval for mining of replacement panels and evaluation of alternatives for additional disposal panels and drifts,” the request read.
But before waste can be disposed of at WIPP, it must be properly inspected and characterized as waste authorized for emplacement.
For that work, the DOE requested about $26.2 million for FY 2023, an increase of about $4.4 million from last year.
Other smaller projects at the site included in the funding request were updates to the site’s fire suppression system, electrical substations, and replacing underground vehicles with low- or zero-emission equipment.
The DOE also funds the transportation of waste to WIPP from its sites across the country, and asked Congress to increase that funding as well to account for the increase in shipments.
The request more than doubled WIPP’s transportation budget from $16.6 million last year to $45.2 million in FY 2023.
The DOE said the increase in funds “reflects transportation activities from multiple locations required for sustained operations at a rate of up to 17 shipments per week.”
|
|
|
|
|
Read about DOE's High Level Waste Interpretation
Have questions about DOE’s recent high-level waste (HLW) interpretation? Download ECA’s Key Points and FAQs on the issue to better understand what ECA believes are the potential benefits of implementation.
Interested in learning more? Read the ECA report “Making Informed Decisions on DOE's Proposed High Level Waste Definition” at www.energyca.org/publications
|
|
Stay Current on Activities in the DOE World
Read the latest edition of the ECA Bulletin, a regular newsletter providing a detailed brief of ECA activities, legislative news, and major events from across the DOE complex. Have suggestions for future editions? Email [email protected].
|
Learn More about Cleanup Sites with ECA's DOE Site Profiles
ECA's new site profiles detail DOE's 13 active Environmental Management cleanup sites and national laboratories, highlighting their history, missions, and priorities. The profiles are a key source for media, stakeholders, and the public to learn more about DOE site activities, contractors, advisory boards, and their surrounding local governments.
|
|
|
|
