What Happened?

Taxpayers are on track to spend $641 billion to $840 billion cleaning up the country’s old nuclear weapons sites, with work running until 2100, and part of that bill depends on what the land is expected to become. At Hanford in Washington state and the Idaho National Laboratory site, the Department of Energy (DOE) and its regulators set cleanup levels safe enough for people to live on large areas, even though homes there are unlikely, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Oct. 16 and a Legis1 review of the report. ​

At Hanford, those residential-level standards cover nearly a third of the 586-square-mile site, including about 40 square miles DOE had planned for industry. At Idaho, most contaminated areas are being cleaned to that level. At the four other sites the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed, in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and South Carolina, cleanup matched the industrial use DOE expected.

Why Does it Matter to Me?

Cleaning land so people could live on it usually costs more than cleaning it for factories or offices, though DOE officials told GAO the extra cost at these two sites is hard to calculate.

The land’s future also matters to nearby towns. DOE has leased or transferred some cleaned land for industry at five of the six sites and has announced plans there for energy projects, nuclear fuel centers and artificial intelligence data centers under President Trump. Local groups generally welcome the jobs and tax revenue, though some warned of recontamination and pulling attention from cleanup, GAO found.

Both Sides, Now

DOE expected Hanford’s land to be used for industry, but the Environmental Protection Agency and Washington’s Department of Ecology, which regulate the cleanup, decided residential use was reasonably possible and required the stricter standard. At Idaho, DOE officials told GAO that people are unlikely to live on any part of the site, even after 2095.

Tribal officials at Hanford see it differently. They told GAO that industrial cleanup standards wouldn’t protect tribal members who hunt, fish and gather on the land, and that the government’s plans for preserving parts of the site don’t match how the tribe would use it.

What Happens Next?

In a companion report, GAO recommended that Congress spell out who has the final say over how cleaned land will be used and that DOE estimate cleanup costs and schedules under several possible future uses. GAO has also recommended that the EPA clarify how regulators should judge a site’s likely future use, and Senate appropriators requested this study in a 2024 spending report.

---

AllCiv makes it easy to stay politically informed and involved.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article