iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Nathan Anderson

Allison Bawden @nukeoversight.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

NNSA spends billions on contracts to operate its nuclear labs & sites. To improve transparency, NNSA uses line items in contracts to differentiate some large “tasks,” like major construction projects, from broad mission work.

gao.gov

U.S. GAO - National Nuclear Security Administration: Use of Line Items in Management and Operating Contracts Could Be Improved

The National Nuclear Security Administration spends over $20 billion per year on 9 contracts to manage and operate the nation's nuclear security...

131

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 26/08/2026

We recommend, among other things, that DOE define “effectiveness” to better hold contractors accountable and have stronger assurance that they can effectively & efficiently manage risks.

020

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 26/08/2026

But DOE doesn’t evaluate the performance of these systems in a way that actually provides assurance that contractors are adequately identifying and managing risks. DOE hasn’t defined “effectiveness” or developed specific, measurable evaluation criteria for evaluating the systems.

120

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 26/08/2026

DOE could hire The Bobs to find efficiencies, but it already has contractor assurance systems that should proactively identify and correct a range of issues, from financial to health & safety matters. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

142

Reposted by Nathan Anderson

Allison Bawden @nukeoversight.bsky.social · 20/08/2026

We already know that Nothing Compares 2 U (RIP Prince): We looked at supply and demand for all sorts of U(ranium), and we found the US has enough low-enriched U and high-enriched U for national security needs until the 2040s. (Good news!) #nukesky www.gao.gov/products/gao...

gao.gov

U.S. GAO - Nuclear Fuel: Actions Needed to Enhance Cost Reporting and Economic Analysis for Federal Uranium Supply Efforts

The National Nuclear Security Administration provides enriched uranium for U.S. national security needs. NNSA is pursuing 3 long-term efforts to...

395

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 30/07/2026

As DOE tackles the challenges of cleaning up its 15 nuclear waste sites—which it estimates will take decades and cost >$641 billion—the agency could apply lessons from various countries that have found ways to accelerate cleanup while reducing related risks and costs.

000

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 30/07/2026

DOE could also replicate operating facilities in “test facilities,” like France and the UK do, to address technical issues and train employees. These facilities have saved each country significant money and minimized disruptions to cleanup efforts.

Figure: Images of a Full-Scale In-Canister Test Facility at France’s Marcoule Site

100

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 30/07/2026

DOE could learn from Canada, which prioritized accelerating cleanup at its two largest nuclear waste sites. As a result, it expects to complete cleanup at one site nearly 30 years ahead of schedule. Similarly, the UK prioritizes cleanup efforts on risks that are “intolerable.”

100

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 29/07/2026

DOE’s end state contracts were meant to provide more reliable costs, faster cleanup, and better results, but DOE didn’t adequately oversee them to assess progress toward these goals. We recommend some actions for DOE to better implement and oversee end state contracts.

010

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 29/07/2026

Since 2019, DOE has used “end state" contracting for nuclear cleanup to focus contractors on a defined outcome. Under this system, DOE saw extra costs of >$500 million because it did not fully use contract incentives to manage costs. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

gao.gov

U.S. GAO - Nuclear Waste Cleanup: DOE Needs to Better Use End State Contracts to Achieve Intended Results

The Department of Energy employs contractors to conduct nuclear waste cleanup at its U.S. sites. Since 2019, DOE has used an "end state" contracting...

172

Reposted by Nathan Anderson

Allison Bawden @nukeoversight.bsky.social · 15/07/2026

NNSA has lots of exciting scientific equipment—like linear accelerators and huge supercomputers—that it uses to design, assess, and certify the nation’s stockpile of nuclear weapons. However, much of it is decades old and needs repair.

gao.gov

U.S. GAO - National Nuclear Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Plan for Science, Technology, and Engineering Facilities and Workforce Investments

The National Nuclear Security Administration relies on unique science, technology, and engineering facilities and a highly skilled workforce to...

153

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 15/07/2026

Moab is likely the next EM site to be completed and formally closed. EM will then have 14 sites remaining—after starting with 107 as the Cold War ended and cleanup began.

030

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 15/07/2026

EM estimates that the Moab Cleanup Project, which has cost $970 million so far, will cost $1.16 billion total and be completed by 2029. When complete, EM expects to hand over the site to Grand County, UT, so the community can determine the site’s future use.

110

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 15/07/2026

DOE has removed >16 million tons of uranium mill tailings and other materials from the Moab Mill Site in Utah, where uranium was processed for weapons during the Cold War. The surrounding groundwater was contaminated and is threatening the Colorado River. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

gao.gov

U.S. GAO - Nuclear Waste: DOE’s Plans to Complete Cleanup and Transfer of Moab Mill Site

The Moab Mill Site in Utah processed uranium during the Cold War era. The surrounding groundwater was contaminated and flowed into the Colorado River...

131

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 02/07/2026

With EM expecting to execute more ≥$100M projects at several sites, we recommend EM consults external experts before moving past the mission need stage, so the agency can ensure it is impartially considering all cost-saving options.

000

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 02/07/2026

Example: EM already had the Low-Activity Waste Pretreatment System in mind as its preferred option because it aligned with a regulatory agreement, but later determined it would cost >50% than estimated, and has since renegotiated its agreement to allow for cheaper options.

100

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 02/07/2026

In some cases, EM considered only a narrow range of options in its mission-need stage, leaving potentially cheaper (yet safe) options on the shelf because of legal and regulatory constraints. However, these constraints have proven to be flexible.

100

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 02/07/2026

Large projects start with a mission need statement that should leave a range of options open rather than identify a specific solution. But we found that the majority of EM’s mission need statements for such projects identified a predetermined solution.

100

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 02/07/2026

When planning new capital asset projects expected to cost more than $100 million, DOE’s nuclear waste cleanup office (EM) doesn’t always consider a wide range of options, leading to overlook potential cost-savings. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

gao.gov

U.S. GAO - Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Changes Needed to Ensure DOE Is Not Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Large Projects

To clean up nuclear waste, the Department of Energy spends billions of taxpayer dollars on large projects, like waste treatment facilities. When...

100

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 22/05/2026

We found that grouting 24 million gallons of this waste could cost $480 million to $1.1 billion. Shipping pretreated waste as liquid via truck to disposal sites would cost ~$12 million to $36 million. DOE estimated the cost to ship solid grouted waste would likely be double that.

010

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 22/05/2026

DOE could design and construct a new grouting facility at Hanford or transport liquid waste to existing grouting facilities. DOE must consider a range of factors, including cost and schedule, risks, and disposal options.

110

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 22/05/2026

In January 2025, DOE, EPA, and Washington State agreed to grout waste from 22 tanks and dispose of it as low-level waste outside the state—likely in UT or TX. DOE must decide where to grout before July.

110

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 22/05/2026

As DOE prepares to grout ~24 million gallons of low-activity waste from 22 tanks at its Hanford site, it must decide whether to grout (1) at Hanford and transport the grout or (2) offsite, which could mean transporting liquid waste. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

121

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 21/05/2026

Hanford, EM’s largest site, lost over a third of its staff in FY25; most of the 96 who left accepted Deferred Resignation Program offers, and about 30% of those were in mission-critical positions. Another 30% will be retirement-eligible by the end of 2030.

054

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 21/05/2026

Future attrition is expected to be high with 30% of EM staff retirement-eligible in 2030. New staff will require years of training to fill positions such as federal project directors, who oversee safety, cost, scope, and schedule for projects costing millions.

162

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 21/05/2026

Mission-critical positions at EM lost 29% of their staff since FY23, resulting in a 44% vacancy rate. Of the 183 mission-critical staff lost, 59 were especially key to safety, according to EM officials.

152

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 21/05/2026

DOE’s nuclear cleanup office (EM) lost staff in every location in FY25 (overall attrition 38%), raising concerns about the safety of operations now and in the future, especially as more staff become eligible for retirement. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

173

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 21/05/2026

000

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 07/05/2026

Naval Reactors, which develops nuclear propulsion for the navy, estimated that it could take up to 100 years to D&D contaminated facilities at 4 sites it is responsible for. However, partnering with EM could help it finish D&D as soon as 2035, pending funding availability.

000

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 07/05/2026

Some good news: the Office of Naval Reactors is on track to save billions on decontamination & decommissioning (D&D) of excess facilities by partnering with DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) & leveraging its network of experienced contractors. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

100

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 05/05/2026

This plan also identified 19 unfunded maintenance projects that could use surplus funds to save ~$120 million. We recommend that DOE communicate these projects’ benefits to Congress and improve data collection and communication between sites and HQ.

010

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 05/05/2026

We and others have expressed concern over DOE’s management of its >4,000 operating cleanup facilities. DOE identifies infrastructure needs in its Master Asset Plan, but 8 of its 13 cleanup sites say this plan doesn’t capture their site-level needs.

100

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 05/05/2026

DOE spends nearly $1 billion annually to maintain the facilities it needs for its nuclear cleanup efforts—an increase of 80% since FY2020. Improving how it manages and communicates data on this spending could save money and better address maintenance needs. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

110

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 25/03/2026

EM has taken some steps to reduce nuclear waste cleanup costs, but it has yet to pursue a wide range of additional opportunities to save potentially tens of billions of dollars more. We recommend that DOE fully pursue such opportunities.

020

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 25/03/2026

We and others (such as the National Academies of Science) have raised concerns about the HLW definition for decades. We recommend that Congress convene a panel to address ambiguities in the definition and identify specific recommendations to clarify it.

121

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 25/03/2026

The definition is based primarily on the waste’s origin—waste resulting from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for the nation’s arsenal—rather than just its radiological characteristics, which inform the environmental and health risks it might pose.

120

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 25/03/2026

Clarifying the statutory definition of “high-level radioactive waste” (HLW) could help DOE save tens of billions of dollars in nuclear cleanup costs, including for treatment and disposal of ~90 million gallons of waste stored in underground tanks. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

gao.gov

122

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 02/03/2026

We identified opportunities for significant cost savings on several cleanup projects and activities, such as by grouting certain radioactive waste and pursuing less costly approaches to cleaning up highly radioactive waste at the Hanford site.

000

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 02/03/2026

DOE also struggles to coordinate with cleanup sites to ensure that cost and schedule data for its operations activities are current, consistent, and accurate.

100

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 02/03/2026

DOE hasn’t ensured that its cost and schedule information for these projects is accurate or complete. Nor has it maintained key documents for its capital projects in its project database, including those that could shed light on potential cost and schedule performance issues.

100

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 02/03/2026

According to DOE data, costs are up and schedules are delayed for many major nuclear cleanup projects and activities since our last report in 2022. Reasons include contractor performance issues, unanticipated site conditions, and technical challenges. www.gao.gov/products/gao...

100

Nathan Anderson @atomicauditor.bsky.social · 13/02/2026

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...

gao.gov

100

Reposted by Nathan Anderson

Allison Bawden @nukeoversight.bsky.social · 30/09/2025

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.

011

Reposted by Nathan Anderson

Allison Bawden @nukeoversight.bsky.social · 30/09/2025

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.

121

Reposted by Nathan Anderson

Allison Bawden @nukeoversight.bsky.social · 30/09/2025

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...

231

Reposted by Nathan Anderson

Allison Bawden @nukeoversight.bsky.social · 30/09/2025

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.

021

Reposted by Nathan Anderson

Allison Bawden @nukeoversight.bsky.social · 30/09/2025

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

102

Reposted by Nathan Anderson

Allison Bawden @nukeoversight.bsky.social · 30/09/2025

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...

145