The Department of Energy’s proposal to significantly cut funding for the West Valley Demonstration Project next year is set to result in the slowdown of some cleanup activities, according to a Department spokesman, though the potential impact on the site’s workforce is still to be determined. Under DOE’s FY 2013 request, West Valley would receive $48 million, down from the site’s current funding level of $65 million. Explaining the anticipated impacts of the request, DOE spokesman Bill Taylor said in a written response late last week, “Under the 2013 budget request funding, the focus at West Valley will continue to be on critical path activities. Phase I Decommissioning activities will continue, but at a slower pace with a four-to-six month schedule impact.” He added, “The Project is expecting to ship 40,000 cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste to permanent disposal facilities out of New York by April 2012. The melter used for vitrification is expected to be shipped in 2013 or 2014.”
CH2M Hill-B&W West Valley, LLC, the site cleanup contractor, plans to “evaluate how we would continue to meet the mission for cleanup and the regulatory requirements at West Valley with the least impact to the workforce and the community,” spokeswoman Lynette Bennett said last week. DOE’s proposed funding cut for West Valley has been met with criticism, though, from members of New York’s Congressional delegation. “I am disappointed that the cleanup of nuclear waste sites is not a priority for the President. This is a critical safety issue and a legitimate priority for the government. I will work in a bi-partisan manner, as I did last year, to ensure that this is adequately addressed,” Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) said in a written response last week. In a separate statement, Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.) warned that the proposed cut could lead to future increased cleanup costs. ‘The federal government has an obligation to the Western New York community to make right what they left behind decades ago. Failure to do so could be catastrophic for the Great Lakes, the world’s largest fresh water resource. Still, slowing the clean-up is more than an environmental risk, with regular maintenance costs of the site at $30 million annually, delaying the funding only multiplies the economic burden to taxpayers,” Higgins said last week.