The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released a report looking at disposal options for a controversial waste form, grouted Hanford tank waste, claiming grouting could result in tens of billions of dollars in savings.

Hanford Challenge has been responding to the increasing enthusiasm for grouting Hanford’s tank waste with calls for caution and dismay, ever since the U.S. Department of Energy put out a report last December about the cost savings that could come with such a move. We responded critically to that report and have since published a timeline of the past failed grout program at Hanford, and frequently asked questions on relabeling and grouting high-level waste that explains under what circumstances Hanford Challenge would be willing to consider grout as a waste form for Hanford tank waste.

Hanford’s tank waste treatment future faces multiple challenges. However, our stance remains that USDOE’s promises of huge cost and schedule savings on huge technically complex projects are rarely if ever realized, and expecting grout to be any different is ill advised. Let’s stick with vitrification (immobilization in glass) and learn as we go, before running after grout, the newest yet-to-be proven “faster, better, cheaper” game in town. Despite improvements in core sampling of Hanford tanks, we still don’t have a complete picture of exactly what concentrations and types of radioactive and chemical wastes each tank contains. This matters a lot when conclusions blithely skip ahead to how easy it will be to mix this waste full of unknowns into a finicky waste form like grout.

This new report from GAO comes in the midst of several other pro-grout moves. There is an open comment period on a draft evaluation of Phase Two of the Test Bed Initiative to test grouting 2,000 gallons of tank waste liquids and for disposal in Texas or Utah. In April of 2022, we expect to see a comment period through the National Academy of Sciences which is evaluating a report examining whether grout is a good option for the portion of tank waste treatment that vitrification can’t handle (supplemental Low Activity Waste). Stay tuned for comment guides on those reports.

The December 2021 GAO report is a review of the Department of Energy’s (USDOE) cost analysis of foregoing vitrification of pretreated tank waste liquids, and instead putting the liquids in concrete (grout). In its review of the USDOE cost analysis, the GAO supports USDOE’s conclusion that grouting would be less expensive than vitrification. However, it is our belief that these cost estimates are overly optimistic.

In addition to the monetary analysis, this GAO report also notes that there is little capacity remaining in the double-shelled Hanford waste tanks. As wastes from failed tanks are redistributed, and as wastes are processed, USDOE may run out of available tank space. The GAO suggests that grouting rather than vitrifying liquids would free up tank space sooner, though we think this is based on assumptions with a great deal of uncertainty.

Here are a few of our issues with the GAO report, released December 2021:

Glosses Over Technical Challenges: The report says disposing of grouted waste presents “minimal technical challenges” because, “DOE has demonstrated the technology and capability to (1) pretreat and separate out low-level radioactive waste from the tank waste, (2) grout low-level tank waste…” (page 15). This demonstrated technology and capability is based entirely on one test of three gallons of tank waste.

There is no one kind of tank waste at Hanford. The wastes vary greatly in constituents—both radionuclides and chemicals. That makes pretreating waste to meet technical and regulatory requirements extremely difficult, if not cost-prohibitive. In addition, grout recipes are hard to develop for many of Hanford’s wastes. The technical challenges are many and daunting. It seems the GAO report glossed over these challenges based on a single three-gallon test.
Cost Savings are Overblown: The proverbial cart is at Hanford while the horse has already arrived in Texas. After glossing over the technical challenges to pretreating waste and making acceptable grout, the report jumps to the disposal end of the process and pins huge savings on potential alternative waste disposal sites that, at best, require huge regulatory assumptions and would only be available many decades in the future. While Waste Control Specialists in Texas has said it will take the waste, permits and siting requirements have yet to be agreed upon.
Uncertainty Abounds: The uncertainties about disposal, related to technical pretreatment grout requirements are so great that even USDOE refuses to broaden its consideration of alternative disposal sites. The report claims “tens of billions” in savings and then admits the numbers are built on uncertain information:
“DOE has started to explore options for disposal of Hanford’s supplemental LAW, but it has limited information about the costs and regulatory challenges associated with various options, which is inconsistent with leading practices for risk-informed decision-making,” (page 33).
“DOE officials and the FFRDC [Federally Funded Research and Development Center] team told us that they did not consider a wider range of other disposal facilities because of uncertainty about pretreatment costs, current DOE policy, or states’ historical opposition,” (page 34).
Reads Like a Grout Marketing Report: The report relies on unidentified “experts.” There are many references to “experts” that are not specifically noted or referenced. We think such reliance on “experts” makes the report appear as grout marketing, not a credible analysis of treating supplemental low-activity wastes at Hanford.
Tank Space Issue Better Solved with New Tanks: USDOE’s Savannah River National Laboratory estimates that vitrification of supplemental waste would take 10 to 15 years, while grouting would take 8 to 13 years. This is not a significant difference in terms of provided added double-shell tank capacity. Constructing new double-shell tanks however, would be faster than both grouting and vitrification in terms of providing added capacity.
Immobilization in Glass is Still the Law: WA Department of Ecology officials have determined that classifying some of the tank waste as low-level radioactive waste does not necessarily remove the RCRA vitrification treatment standard from the waste. Hanford Challenge believes that the grouting proposal is not currently lawful.

Stay tuned for more take action alerts and our take on new reports (which are bound to come out) in the frenzy for the next faster, cheaper, better solution to Hanford’s tank waste, a thorny problem full of deeply rooted systemic issues, political challenges, and technical hurdles.

This material is funded through a Public Participation Grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The content was reviewed for grant consistency but is not necessarily endorsed by the agency.