Nathan Anderson

New Mexico Rebukes Federal Agency Over Nuclear Waste at Los Alamos

www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/u...

The @nytimes.com discusses the competing priorities of states still dealing with cleanup of legacy nuclear waste. In our 2025 report on DOE’s waste disposal planning we recommended that DOE convene a forum of regulators to negotiate changes to its disposal plans.

www.gao.gov/products/gao...

Los Alamos looks forward to additional park-and-ride shuttle routes to the lab. NNSA has some concerns about potential challenges with having sufficient federal staff to oversee the program and assess whether it’s providing the intended benefits.

Under a new authority in the FY25 NDAA, NNSA sites can reimburse some contractor commuting costs. This could improve safety and congestion. To date, Los Alamos is the only site to have made a proposal; they estimated it would cost $74 million to implement from FY25–30.

Commuting can be a slog. One way NNSA can address recruitment & retention challenges at its labs is by making it easier to get to work, including by offering park-and-ride shuttles and public transit subsidies.
www.gao.gov/products/gao...

NNSA said it plans to implement new processes, including the use of templates and root cause guidance, to help project managers better meet reporting requirements. We recommend they complete the guidance and implement the process.

NNSA saw costs grow >25% on 7 out of 14 construction projects, but didn’t notify Congress about 5 of them for months, let alone within the 30 days required by law. Nor did NNSA assess the root causes of cost overruns for those 5 within 90 days or inform Congress, as required. #nukesky

NNSA spends a lot of money on nuclear weapons & infrastructure. NNSA has requirements (similar to those of the Nunn-McCurdy Act) to formally notify Congress about cost overruns and assess the reasons for the overruns, but it hasn’t consistently done so.
www.gao.gov/products/gao...

DOE also has opportunities to work with regulators on cost effectiveness. For example, DOE and California are still determining how to clean up soil at a site in Ventura County. DOE estimates that cleanup could cost between $57 million to $1 billion.

We made the same recommendation to DOE in 2024 regarding groundwater cleanup—that the agency collect and use comprehensive information on groundwater cleanup to better prioritize. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

More specific information about soil and legacy landfill cleanup from its sites would enable DOE to make better decisions on how to prioritize cleanup efforts across its sites, making the most of its limited resources.

The cleanup of soil and landfills contaminated with nuclear waste, which DOE is on the hook for, could cost tens of billions of dollars and take decades. But the agency is unable to readily identify the scope, schedule, and cost of this cleanup.
www.gao.gov/products/gao...

We recommend that DOE direct sites that haven’t completed an initial historical and current use review to do so by an established deadline and report to each responsible DOE office on whether additional investigation, characterization, or cleanup of PFAS contamination is needed.

DOE found PFAS contamination in groundwater at Paducah, KY—up to 128,000 parts per trillion (ppt). No regulations currently limit PFAS in groundwater, but two PFAS types, PFOA and PFOS, are limited to 4 ppt in drinking water—about 1 drop in 5 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

DOE has used PFAS—which has been linked to health issues like cancer and infertility—in firefighting foam and for uranium enrichment, among other things. These applications can release PFAS into the environment, but the extent of contamination is unknown.

Most Department of Energy sites haven’t completed reviews of their use of “forever chemicals” known as #PFAS, which have been linked to harmful health effects. We recommend that DOE finish these reviews so it can fully address PFAS contamination. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

DOE has used PFAS—which has been linked to health issues like cancer and infertility—in firefighting foam and for uranium enrichment, among other things. These applications can release PFAS into the environment, but the extent of contamination is unknown.

Until the UPF is ready, NNSA will have to keep using an 80-year old facility that could cost up to a half billion dollars to maintain in the meantime. We recommended that NNSA develop a comprehensive plan for this maintenance.

The UPF is also delayed. The agency is monitoring the project, but there are already doubts that the contractor will meet its project milestone for 2029. There are concerns about the ability to track project progress because of the way the contractor categorizes project tasks.

The estimated cost to complete the UPF has increased nearly $4 billion just since construction started in 2018. Poor management accounts for $770 million of that. NNSA has conducted reviews to get to the root of the cost increases and implemented 19 out of 20 corrective actions.

In 2004 NNSA began planning the Uranium Processing Facility to replace Manhattan Project-era facilities at Y-12 in TN. Fast forward 21 years: UPF’s est. cost is up to nearly $10 billion and it’ll cost NNSA to keep using old facilities until UPF is complete.
www.gao.gov/products/gao...

This morning @nytimes reported on radiological risks in Ukraine. We have a recent report on the range of nuclear security and safety risks related to the war in Ukraine. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

You wouldn’t think the cost of a fixed-price construction contract could increase—but hundreds of NNSA’s run over, to the tune of $37.5 million just in FY23. NNSA’s construction budget is always tight so unexpected increases mean delays for other projects. www.gao.gov/products/gao... #nukesky

Fusion is essential for powering the USS Enterprise—and, here on earth, for maintaining and modernizing the U.S. nuclear stockpile without explosive nuclear testing. NNSA operates 3 fusion facilities for these purposes.
www.gao.gov/products/gao... #nukesky

Even so, there are signs that DNFSB is on the right track: DNFSB’s score on a measure of employee engagement & satisfaction jumped to 70 (out of 100) in 2024, from 39 in 2017. DNFSB’s primary resource is its people so better human capital planning means better outcomes.

Even so, there are signs that DNFSB is on the right track: DNFSB’s score on a measure of employee engagement & satisfaction jumped to 70 (out of 100) in 2024, from 39 in 2017. DNFSB’s primary resource is its people so better human capital planning means better outcomes.

But! DNFSB is supposed to have 5 presidentially nominated & Senate-confirmed Board members. Filling seats has been challenging; as of August 2025, the Board had 2 seats filled, with 1 member’s term expiring in Oct 2025. With 1 seated member, the Board’s authority will be limited.

DNFSB enhanced collaboration with stakeholders, improved internal processes, and boosted employee morale. One among many examples: DNFSB hired & delegated authority to an Executive Director of Operations to supervise staff and manage the day-to-day.

DNFSB has been busy—in addition to independently overseeing health & safety protections at U.S. defense nuclear facilities, it has been improving its management and planning based on recommendations from GAO and others.

DNFSB enhanced collaboration with stakeholders, improved internal processes, and boosted employee morale. One among many examples: DNFSB hired & delegated authority to an Executive Director of Operations to supervise staff and manage the day-to-day.