Nuclear Waste Cleanup Costs Surge Amid Significant Deficiencies in Department of Energy’s Project Data

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that the Department of Energy (DOE) needs to enhance the accuracy of its cost and schedule information for major projects and activities related to the cleanup of radioactive and hazardous waste. This initiative, which involves over $500 billion in expenditures, is identified as a “High Risk List” item due to ongoing concerns with the department’s management and oversight.

According to the GAO’s latest assessment, the DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) has experienced substantial cost increases for its major cleanup efforts. Since the GAO’s previous evaluation in 2022, the combined costs for the most expensive capital asset projects have risen by more than $2 billion, while the combined costs for the most expensive operations activities have escalated by approximately $75 billion. These figures represent significant financial growth in ongoing cleanup operations, such as soil treatment, and project-based work, like the demolition of aging facilities. EM officials have indicated that these increases were already recognized by the agency and were factored into previous lifecycle cost estimates communicated to Congress. As of May 2025, the projected total cost for all remaining cleanup work across all EM sites is estimated to exceed half a trillion dollars.

The GAO report highlights that EM faces challenges in fully analyzing the root causes of these cost increases and schedule delays. The office has struggled with maintaining complete documentation and reconciling data discrepancies, which are crucial for understanding the reasons behind budget overruns and delays. Key project documents are not consistently accessible for headquarters review within DOE’s project management database. This lack of accessibility hinders the ability to gather valuable information on the drivers of cost increases and to formulate recommendations for addressing underlying issues. Furthermore, EM encounters difficulties in providing up-to-date and consistent cost and schedule information for its operations activities, with disparities existing between headquarters and various sites. EM officials have found it challenging to coordinate efforts to reconcile these inconsistencies. The GAO emphasizes that ensuring the complete availability of project information and improving inter-agency coordination to address data accuracy and consistency are vital steps for EM to effectively manage its projects and activities, provide more reliable information to Congress, and offer robust support to the sites undertaking the cleanup work.

Even with improvements in data completeness and consistency, the GAO cautions that EM’s cost and schedule estimates may still involve considerable uncertainty. Officials from several EM sites have informed the GAO that the final remedies for cleanup at their locations have yet to be determined. This uncertainty could potentially lead to further increases in costs and extend project timelines. The GAO has previously noted that significant cost and schedule savings are attainable for several ongoing cleanup projects and activities. For instance, potential savings have been identified for projects such as grouting closed tanks at Hanford, estimated at $18 billion, and grouting remaining low-activity waste at Hanford, with potential savings up to $210 billion. Optimizing transuranic waste shipments could yield savings of $700 million, and optimizing high-level waste treatment at Hanford is projected to save tens of billions of dollars.

In response to these findings, the GAO has put forth two recommendations for EM. First, EM is advised to ensure the completeness of cost and schedule information related to its capital asset projects within DOE’s Project Assessment and Reporting System. Second, EM should enhance coordination with site officials and contractors to improve the accuracy of both current and historical cost and schedule data for its operations activities and to reconcile any existing data discrepancies. The Department of Energy has concurred with these recommendations.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the U.S. Government Accountability Office

---