Clinton’s Budget Slashes Hanford Jobs, Cleanup Funds
The Clinton administration wants to slash up to 2,500 more jobs and cut $100 million from Hanford’s $1.5 billion budget next year.
The cuts proposed to Congress on Monday are in addition to more than 2,000 other Hanford jobs disappearing under reductions ordered last year.
In all, Hanford employment would be cut from a peak of 18,700 in 1994 to about 14,000 in 1996.
“We’ve got to do more with less - that’s really the message,” said John Wagoner, U.S. Department of Energy manager in Richland.
Northwest elected officials reacted unhappily. Some complained of the economic impact on the Tri-Cities, while others worried Hanford cleanup could be derailed permanently.
Rep. Doc Hastings, the Tri-Cities’ new Republican congressman, called the cuts “a bitter pill to swallow.” more economic transition money for the Tri-Cities region.
Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., called the proposed layoffs unfair to workers. “Republicans will find more creative ways to cut the federal budget that won’t result in massive job losses,” he said.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, warned the proposal could violate the state’s legally binding agreement with the federal government to clean up Hanford by 2028.
Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said the Hanford cuts over five years “would critically cripple any chance of cleaning up or even stabilizing some of the most dangerous materials to stop them from leaking into the Columbia River.”
The Hanford cuts are part of a multiyear program of budget-slashing at weapons sites nationwide.
Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary announced cuts of $4.4 billion in DOE’s nuclear cleanup program in a news conference Monday.
Under the plan, DOE’s work force would be cut 12 percent by the end of 1995 and 21 percent by 1998. Most of the cuts would be in DOE contractors’ employees.
“This is, in my view, an answer to redundancy … when the numbers come down, people will be doing meaningful jobs,” O’Leary said.
Last November, The Spokesman-Review published a five-day series on problems with the Hanford cleanup, including do-nothing jobs, questionable employee perks and a bloated work force.
Despite the cuts, O’Leary said she still is committed to legally binding cleanup pacts with several states, including Washington. But she said portions of agreements may have to be renegotiated.
At his news conference in Richland, Wagoner pledged cooperation with the state.
DOE’s national cleanup chief said a smaller work force actually will make Hanford cleanup more efficient.
There’s a lot of fat at Hanford that needs paring before critical programs are hurt, said Thomas Grumbly in a Jan. 10 memo to DOE field offices.
Under the new DOE budget request, spending for environmental restoration, the “actual cleanup” portion of Hanford’s budget, declines from $204 million this year to $173 million in 1996.
Other environmental management spending at Hanford would fall from the current $1.5 billion to about $1.4 billion next year and $1.2 billion in each of the following two years.