WC Monitor
10/24/2014
Below is the full speech, as prepared for delivery, given by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) at this year’s Weapons Complex Monitor Decisionmakers’ Forum, held this week in Amelia Island, Fla.
Thank you for inviting me to speak with you this evening. As I complete my final months serving my last term it’s only natural that my remarks reflect on the 20 years that I have been in Congress. And, when that reflection comes to cleanup – a lot has changed. In fact, I’ve been working on cleanup so long that I remember when Martin Schneider was just “Marty” and was always in the front row at the Cleanup Caucus briefings. When WTP was to cost “only” $4.3 billion and make glass by 2007. When Congress actually passed budgets and appropriations bills each year. Heck, I remember when there was a leadership position known as EM-1!
In all seriousness, when I was first elected to Congress, Bill Clinton was President, Hazel O’Leary was the Secretary of Energy, Thomas Grumbly was the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House and Bob Dole was Senate Majority Leader. Nationally, there was no overriding plan for cleanup of our defense nuclear waste sites. At Hanford there was no focus on the tank wastes. There was a vague concept of a vitirification plant to treat high level waste – and the concept that low level waste was to be grouted – but that’s about all. The Office of River Protection did not exist. B Reactor was to be wastefully and expensively cocooned rather than reserved for the public. And, within Congress, the prevailing attitude about defense nuclear waste was to ‘put a fence around it and let it sit there’.
Today the Environmental Management program, and the attitude about cleanup is much different. There is wider recognition of the federal government’s legal obligations to clean up this waste created by the defense programs that helped win World War II and end the Cold War. And, a shared desire to get the job done as safely, quickly and efficiently as possible. Those of you in this room have played key roles in this effort.
As a new Member of Congress in 1995, it was immediately clear that the universe of those who cared deeply about the Environmental Management program was quite small. Obviously, most states and congressional districts are not home to any EM sites – much less the world’s largest most complex cleanup project that is Hanford. It was essential for the small group who did have a direct stake in EM to speak loudly and with one voice. Instead of pitting site against site and Member against Member – fighting for the crumbs of EM funding, focus and resources …. everyone would be needed to ensure that EM overall received the resources and attention it needed. One of the first things I did was get together with Zach Wamp, and Lindsey Graham and Charlie Norwood and Mike Crapo. We sat down with Newt Gingrich and made our case. And, out of that came a task force on nuclear cleanup that ultimately turned into the bipartisan House Nuclear Cleanup Caucus.
Now, let me focus on some successes that have happened over the last 20 years. Across the complex, we have seen Rocky Flats, Mound and Fernald close. Decommissioning and demolition of K-25 at Oak Ridge is complete. WIPP was opened and began accepting waste. P and R Reactors at Savannah River have been decommissioned and demolished. And more.
Now, let me focus on Hanford. At Hanford all the plutonium has been shipped out of our state, the River Corridor Closure contract is very nearly complete, WTP is over 60 constructed, PUREX was deactivated, HAMMER has been expanded into a state-of-the-art permanent training facility, C and N Reactors have been cocooned, retrieval work at 14 tanks is complete with 7.5 million gallons of pumpable liquids and over 1.2 million gallons of sludge and saltcake removed, fuel stored underwater at the K Basins has been moved to the Canister Storage Facility, the largest groundwater treatment facility has been built, and sludge at K East has been moved to K West, and ERDF was built and has been expanded.
In 1998, my legislation creating the Office of River Protection became law. The purpose of ORP, then, and today, is to provide a streamlined management structure and to ensure that the safety, retrieval and treatment of the waste stored in Hanford’s underground tanks receives the focus and attention that is required. In order to function properly, the ORP Site Manager must have the authority to oversee WTP and the Tank Farms, and requires a direct line to the Assistant Secretary for EM. This is spelled out in the law to provide both certainty and accountability to a complex project. The budget for ORP was always to be developed and considered separately from the Richland Operations Office, although it isn’t the case under this Administration.
Consider this. The Idaho and Oak Ridge sites would never be given one budget number and asked to divide it up – yet that is precisely what is bring proposed at the two distinct sites colloquially known as Hanford. With the challenges and uncertainty facing WTP today, the need for the Office of River Protection is perhaps more important today than it was back when it was created. In short, the division of ORP and RL provides the greatest opportunity for legally enforceable cleanup commitments at both sites to be met.
What does the future hold? I am hopeful for the future of cleanup at all of our sites. Yet, serious challenges remain and must be addressed head on. First, the nature of cleanup work – the planning, the designs, the procurement process, the trained workforce – requires steady and stable funding. Not the peaks of stimulus spending or the valleys of sequestration. Furthermore, it’s not the case that the federal government does not have enough money to meet its legal cleanup commitments. In fact, many years funding for EM is down, while overall federal spending and spending at the Department of Energy overall is up.
All Administrations have a legal obligation to request adequate cleanup funding and all Congresses have a responsibility to provide it. Today, this means that this Administration must stop shortchanging EM in its budget requests- including but not limited to abandoning plans to eviscerate the Richland Operations Office in FY2016. The Administration must stop purporting that its proposed cuts have no impact on cleanup – because at some point decisionmakers will either: A) start believing it or B) use it as their excuse to continue and deepen the reductions.
It also means that Members of Congress must be willing to publically and forcefully request and fight for cleanup dollars and not mask meeting legal requirements as an excuse for fiscal responsibility. Providing funding for EM does not contradict core beliefs of smaller more efficient government and fiscal responsibility. It’s a matter of setting proper priorities.
When it comes to budgets and appropriations it’s not only the amount that matters – but also the timing. Continuing resolutions and late omnibus appropriations bills lead sites and contractors to lay off trained workers, to delay procurements and to put off planning. This wastes time and money and leads to setbacks to cleanup progress. Before I came to Congress, I served in the Washington State Legislature. The Washington state government operates on a biennial budget and appropriations system. Perhaps that could also work on the federal level – providing more stability for all government programs including EM and freeing up time in Washington DC to focus on authorizing legislation and real reforms.
In order to secure and defend the steady stable funding needed to get the job done, spending must be smart and the EM program must be operated strategically. Complexwide, the Department of Energy should not continue the practice of signing legal agreements that cannot be met. In 2010, a Consent Decree between the Obama Administration and the State of Washington was finalized to resolve a lawsuit that started when George Bush was President. Within mere months, it was widely recognized that the milestones in the Consent Decree could not be met. Common sense would indicate that DOE knew or should have known when it was signed that the commitments made in the Consent Decree simply were not possible …or at a minimum were risky at best.
At the time, it may have seemed like a quick politically attractive solution to a longstanding legal problem, but the Consent Decree has only resulted in further delays. Hanford’s Waste Treatment Plant is still in limbo four years later with no path forward. New notifications have been issued about tank retrieval milestones that will be missed. And, today, the Department of Energy and the State of Washington are back in court – neither with viable proposals in their current form. Long term, the practice of signing legal agreements that cannot be met undermines the argument used by me and other EM supporters that legal cleanup commitments must be met and must come first.
Smart spending also means focusing dollars on activities that actually advance cleanup or save money and pushing back against activities that don’t. I’ve long been concerned about the requests from the State of Washington to construct new storage tanks at Hanford and to pump AY-101. These actions do absolutely nothing to move cleanup forward and would likely result in tank waste remaining at Hanford even longer. Consider this, the recent deal between the State of Washington and DOE on pumping AY-102 will cost $30 million next year alone. That is $30 million that won’t go toward real cleanup….instead it will be used to pump a tank that, even with the leak into the annulus, poses no greater risk than any of the existing single shell tanks at Hanford – likely much less.
Focus and resources would be diverted from the real solution – getting these wastes ready to feed WTP, vitrifying them and ultimately sending the high-level portion to Yucca Mountain. And that says nothing of the other work at ORP or at other EM sites that would be stopped or delayed in order to pay for new storage tanks and pumping. In my view, these very real risks and trade-offs are too often ignored.
Smart spending also means time and money should not be wasted searching for alternatives to Yucca Mountain and MOX when solutions already exist. It’s incomprehensible to me why any time or money was wasted studying unworkable MOX alternatives that would be harmful to cleanup progress at Hanford. The Department of Energy released a report in April outlining alternatives to MOX – including an option involving additional missions for the already challenging Waste Treatment Plant and another involving restarting Fast Flux Test Facility despite previous actions by the Department to drill the core of the reactor. It makes no sense. As with Yucca Mountain, this is another example of creating a problem when a solution already exists. More on that later.
And finally, when formulating budgets, it would be wise from a management standpoint to use caution in taking money from successful site projects. For example, as the River Corridor Closure project is completed – both on time and under budget I might add – that money should not disappear from EM and in fact should not leave the Richland Operations Office as long as there is work to be done and milestones to be met at that site. That is the expectation we are all working on when the River Corridor is completed and off the books and it’s an example of smart spending.
Another challenge that must be addressed is transparency – or rather lack thereof. First and foremost, everyone involved in cleanup – from the Secretary of Energy to Members of Congress to every site managers to all the contractors – must always remember that cleanup is funded by taxpayer dollars. The public has a right to know what is happening at cleanup sites, how decisions are made and how budgets are formulated. When it comes to WTP, I’ve been waiting for five years for basic information and details about proposed paths forward. That information includes estimated costs and schedules, business and safety cases for proposed new facilities, and details on workscope. It is information I need to best advocate for this critical facility. Today questions remain unanswered and the future of the cleanup is being decided by DC and Washington state lawyers behind closed doors. WTP is an integral part of cleaning up Hanford’s tank waste. It’s not optional. Progress is being made on the ground at the site and in order for that to continue basic information must be provided and a workable fundable plan must be finalized.
Greater transparency is also warranted when it comes to providing information to impacted sites, states, communities and stakeholders about how DOE decisions at one site will impact others. Individual cleanup proposals cannot be considered in a vacuum, without complete understanding of the implications on all ongoing work and the ability to meet all legal obligations of the federal government. Open dialog is warranted so that everyone has a full understanding about what any new cleanup agreements or decisions would mean for work at all sites.
I’ve asked the Department how their proposed framework for WTP would impact work and milestones at RL and other sites because when the ink is dry, I don’t want there to be any surprises this time. Decisions of this magnitude should not solely be made by lawyers behind closed doors with details provided to the public only after is too late to provide input.
None of these challenges can be addressed without strong stable leadership – both at DOE headquarters and at the sites. Today, there is no site manager at the Richland Operations Office, or at Oak Ridge. Strong site managers should be named and those on the ground who know the sites and communities best should be empowered to make decisions and to communicate them. While site managers should be empowered to make decisions, advocate for their projects and manage cleanup and communications for their site, a confirmed Assistant Secretary is required to oversee the EM program and ensure that site managers have the resources, tools and support they need to get the job done.
There has not been an Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management since Ines Triay left – resulting in a de facto elimination of this position. This is not a knock on any of the individuals who have filled in over the years, but a nominated and confirmed Assistant Secretary would provide the EM program with a much needed level of certainty and sense of continuity. And, in turn it would provide the program leader with the authority and accountability needed to meet cleanup challenges. Having an Assistant Secretary in place would help strengthen the Environmental Management program and put the federal government in a better position to meet its legal cleanup obligations.
Finally, it isn’t possible to discuss the challenges of nuclear waste cleanup without mentioning the elephant in the room – Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is the national repository under the law – period. Yucca is equally important to growing nuclear power and to cleaning up defense nuclear waste – two of my longstanding priorities, as the Tri-Cities is home not only to Hanford but also to the only operational nuclear power plant in the Pacific Northwest. As those of you here know, the $12 billion plus facility designed to vitrify Hanford’s high-level tank waste so that it can be sent to Yucca Mountain is over 60 percent complete. The longer Yucca Mountain is delayed, the longer waste will remain at Hanford. Hanford has long provided interim storage for the majority of our nation’s defense nuclear waste – and it will continue to serve as an interim storage site until Yucca Mountain is finished.
Advocates of the EM program should never lose sight of the ultimate goal. To deny the impact of Yucca Mountain shutting down on cleanup is at best inaccurate and at worst dishonest. Priorities should include stopping the illegal shutdown of Yucca Mountain and opposing legislative efforts that circumvent Yucca Mountain. Distracting focus from a permanent repository through interim storage gimmicks and an unrealistic siting process, and punting a permanent repository off until 2048 is wholly unacceptable.
Now, I want to switch gears and talk about some opportunities for our communities as we look to our post-cleanup future, diversification of our local economies and jobs. When it comes to preparing for life-after-cleanup I have three core principles:
1) In the case of Hanford, the 586 square miles needed to create the site was taken from private landowners – not from other government entities. There are those who believe this land is the federal government’s land and that the community should have put up a fight, write a big check, wait years, and jump through hoops to access this publically owned land. I think they have it exactly backwards. In my view, land no longer needed for cleanup should not remain with the federal government into perpetuity. It should not be seen as way for the federal government to make money from land that was never theirs to begin with. Nor should the federal government make decisions that give special treatment to one group of citizens at the expense of access or benefit to the broader public.
2) Portions of these lands must be made available for economic development in these communities that have hosted defense and later cleanup sites for decades.
3) Local communities must drive decisions about future land use. The federal government should be helping communities implement their own visions for their future – not dictating to these communities what their future should be.
To help implement the Tri-Cities vision for the future, I have written a bill that has been passed by the House of Representatives to ensure public access to Rattlesnake Mountain so that everyone can enjoy and appreciate this publically owned land.
As Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I wrote legislation that has been passed by the House of Representatives to establish the Manhattan Project National Park that would include facilities at Hanford, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos. Establishing these sites as a national historical park is the best way to preserve their history, tell this chapter of our nation’s history and ensure public access. Congress got very very close to passing this provision into law last year, and we have another opportunity now. I am hopeful that as final negotiations on the National Defense Authorization Act are completed this year, the Senate will allow the Manhattan Project National Park provision to remain and be signed into law.
And, I’m working on a House-passed provision to execute a small transfer of Hanford land no longer needed for cleanup back to the community for economic development. This 1,600 acres was requested by the DOE identified Community Reuse Organization – TRIDEC – four years ago. Notably this request is simply to develop land that has already been identified by the Department of Energy in the Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan for industrial use. If a mere 1,600 acres of land requested for a purpose wholly in line with already approved land use guidelines and with federal community reuse laws cannot be transferred in 4 years – we should all be deeply concerned our future ability to access land no longer needed by the government at all cleanup sites.
Let me emphasize this point. In recent years, Dave Huizenga testified before the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and noted and I quote, “In 2009, the total footprint of EM’s cleanup sites was 931 square miles. Through January 2013, we have reduced that figure by 74 percent” end quote. 74 percent! The fact is sites are being cleaned up and land is being freed up. This land is no longer needed by the government and should be turned back over to the communities for whatever they desire. With a 74 percent footprint reduction the expectation is that this turnover could and should happen sooner rather than later. In fact, it was this shrinking of the site and talk of energy hubs that the Obama Administration used as selling points for its stimulus spending plan. Well, the money has been spent … sites are shrinking … yet the land remains locked up.
Particularly as more land becomes available, a fair and timely process should be pursued to ensure that land no longer needed by the Department of Energy is transferred out of government hands and can be used for other purposes.
In closing, I would like to offer a few words of advice for those of you who will carry on in the efforts to strengthen the EM program:
First, always try to speak with one voice – remember that the cleanup universe is small. Continue and renew the Cleanup Caucus to broaden the universe of EM advocates. At the annual briefings, allow sites to speak freely instead of repeating OMB talking points.
Second, celebrate EM successes and push back against misinformation like we recently experienced at Hanford regarding leaking tanks. Cleanup is much farther along than it was 20 years ago. While much attention, and rightly so, is on the very real and very serious cleanup challenges that remain … it can become far too easy to lose sight of the amount of work that DOE, the site offices, the contractors and the workers on the ground have been able to accomplish.
Third, ironically the Environmental Management program is seldom discussed in the same way as other so-called “environmental” issues. This should change.
Finally, never forget that cleanup is hard, hard work. The technical issues are immense, the stakes are high and there is little room for error. Throughout my career, when I’ve been critical it has been in efforts to improve the program and insulate it from misplaced attacks. And when I’ve given appreciation and congratulations it’s been done with pride and sincerity. In that vein, I would like to thank everyone who has taken the initiative and has the perseverance to work on the daunting challenge of EM.
On a personal note, if you have ever floated the Hanford Reach, you probably know that Hanford is quite literally in my backyard … I can see the 300 Area from my house. Know that my interest in cleanup and the cleanup communities will continue well beyond my service in Congress and I wish you all the best.
