DOE subsequently found itself unable to comply with the characterization deadline and renegotiated the agreement. Characterization Has Fallen Behind Schedule

DOE and Westinghouse have made limited progress in meeting the agreed-upon deadlines for characterization. 2). The result has been excessive cost due to inefficient sampling and an inadequacy of data required to meet DQOs.”

	Conclusions

After more than 10 years and about $260 million invested in trying to characterize the tank wastes at Hanford, little definitive progress has occurred. Disagreement still exists over how much and what kind of characterization data are needed to reliably predict actual quantities of waste constituents and build appropriate treatment facilities. Furthermore, these uncertainties could undermine the savings DOE expects to realize by privatizing the tank waste remediation program. The review should focus on determining (1) how much and what kind of information is sufficient to reliably characterize the tank wastes and predict the quantities and conditions of the waste constituents and (2) the amount and quality of characterization information needed for DOE to proceed with the design and construction of waste treatment facilities. Second, DOE’s projected completion of characterization by 2004 is based on a characterization approach that has not been validated.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO reviewed the Department of Energy's (DOE) progress in characterizing its tank waste at its Hanford site, focusing on: (1) whether it has met its characterization deadlines; (2) the impediments to meeting characterization deadlines; and (3) the impact that continued delays have on the characterization process.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) over the past 10 years, DOE has spent over $260 million and made little definitive progress in characterizing the tank wastes at Hanford; (2) DOE has not been able to meet characterization deadlines for the 54 tanks with known safety problems; (3) the DOE contractor has been unable to characterize any of the 177 tanks as ready for remediation; (4) DOE and its contractor have had problems performing reliable top-to-bottom samples, gathering sampling data, reconciling tank contents, and developing an effective tank characterization management system; (5) disagreement exists as to what kind and how much information is needed to reliably predict actual waste quantities and build appropriate treatment facilities; (6) Congress, DOE, and private contractors need better sampling and characterization information to reliably predict total program costs; and (7) these uncertainties could undermine the savings DOE expects to realize by privatizing the tank waste remediation program.