Letter From Assistant Secretary Alvin L. Alm

Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
July 1, 1996

I am pleased to submit the 1996 Baseline Environmental Management Report (1996 Baseline Report) to Congress. This report represents another step forward toward our goal of improving financial and managerial control. Moreover, it improves greatly on previous analyses. First, it compiles and integrates cost and cleanup schedule information from field offices to a greater extent than prior efforts, thereby presenting a more complete picture than ever before. Also, this report provides the results of analyses of alternative case scenarios, creating a broader perspective in planning for the future.

Since the 1996 Baseline Report was prepared, Environmental Management managers have committed to complete clean­up at most sites within ten years. For certain waste streams, such as high­level wastes and transuranic wastes, expenditures would be made after the ten­year period. Also, expenditures would continue for groundwater pump­and­treat projects and for surveillance and monitoring beyond this time frame. All facilities would, however, achieve a safe and secure interim end state by the end of the ten­year period.

The 1996 Baseline Report analyzes costs over a 70­year period for achieving program goals. It includes ongoing costs for surveillance and maintenance, groundwater pump­and­treat projects, and certain costs for treatment and disposal of high­level and transuranic wastes that will be incurred after the ten­year period. These factors explain some of the differences between the 1996 Baseline Report estimates and the assumptions underlying the 10­year vision. Also, the 1996 Baseline Report does not take into account potential efficiencies from consolidated treatment and disposal or cost­savings resulting from speeding up the cleanup schedule.

The ten­year vision recognizes that the time table for clean­up suggested in the 1996 Baseline Report is too slow. We need to make progress sooner. Not only will quicker progress help reduce risks to human health and the environment, but it will also greatly reduce the total cleanup costs. One message we have learned from the 1996 Baseline Report analysis is that the longer a cleanup takes, the longer one pays the "mortgage" costs to support a workforce presence on the site. We should not pay this cost any longer than necessary.

Another change that we are making is to integrate this type of life cycle planning into our regular budget and planning processes. We have begun doing this in the new ten­year planning process that will define new, near­term objectives, greatly accelerate the pace of cleanup, and reduce related costs. My ten year planning effort flows directly from the findings of the 1996 Baseline Report. In addition to what we have learned about the long­term implications of continued payment of mortgage costs, we have learned that much of the risks and costs can be eliminated in the short run.

I am challenging current assumptions. More accurately I am asking all of you - DOE employees, contractors, regulators and stakeholders ­ to challenge current assumptions to get more cleanup done sooner than currently planned. As many of you know I have called for the development of a Ten­Year Plan by each of our sites. I believe that, properly motivated and challenged and buttressed by a rigorous analytical baseline of data, the talented personnel at our sites can substantially complete most of the cleanup within ten years.

All the site managers have signed up to this objective, even though many realize that this is a stretch goal. I believe that we have no choice but to look for smarter ways to perform our cleanup work faster and cheaper. It is unlikely that Congress will appropriate the large sums of money over a sustained period necessary to continue on our current path. Nor should they. Each year we fail to complete a cleanup is another year that we must pay for secondary "support" costs necessary just to keep the doors open. Our goal is not to keep the doors open at most of these sites. It is to reduce the risks and reduce the long­term surveillance and monitoring costs. We now believe we have "an end in site" across most of the complex.

The 1996 Baseline Report provides a strong foundation for meeting these goals, by providing a mark to measure ourselves against. I strongly believe that we can measure significant progress over this current baseline. That was the intent of the baseline effort from the beginning ­­ to chart a course and measure progress on that course, and make course corrections when we are not satisfied with the progress. The 1996 Baseline Report provides us with starting point for accelerating the program and reducing the costs.

Sincerely,

Alvin L. Alm
Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management