Moreover, the one commercial disposal site that is readily available to DOE can accept only low-level and mixed wastes that contain very low concentrations of radioactivity. On February 25, 2000, DOE issued a new waste disposal policy, making the low-level and mixed waste disposal facilities at two of its sites—the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and the Hanford Site—available to all of its waste- generating sites. But before DOE can fully implement this new policy, it will need to secure the cooperation of Nevada and Washington State. 3). Neither site currently disposes of mixed wastes from sites outside its respective state. Hanford must obtain a RCRA permit from Washington, NTS from Nevada. DOE Is Spending Millions on Waste Management, but Managers Lack Information and Guidance for Making Cost-Effective Disposal Decisions

DOE spent over $700 million over the last 3 fiscal years to manage and dispose of its low-level and mixed wastes.These costs, particularly for waste storage, may have been higher than they would have been without DOE’s restrictions on disposal options- all but two waste-generating sites have had to store their mixed wastes while awaiting DOE’s policy decision on the management and disposal of low-level and mixed wastes. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Costs Are Substantial

For fiscal years 1997 through 1999, DOE’s waste-generating and disposal sites reported spending about $705 million to manage and dispose of their low-level and mixed wastes. 5.) III for the waste management and disposal costs at DOE’s six disposal sites.) These fees are not consistent among the disposal sites and do not include all of each site’s annual disposal costs. Specifically, the Secretary should develop reasonable and consistent estimates of the life-cycle costs of each of DOE’s disposal facilities, including the costs to close, monitor, and maintain each facility; decide if the operators of DOE’s disposal facilities should charge waste- generating sites fees for disposal services; if charging disposal fees is the preferred policy, provide the operators of disposal facilities with guidance on how to develop and use fees and what those fees should include; if charging fees is not the preferred policy, provide DOE’s waste- generating sites with guidance on how to compare the costs of disposing of their wastes at each available DOE and commercial disposal facility, including consideration of the estimated life-cycle costs of those facilities; and assess the effects of using commercial waste disposal facilities on the costs of operating DOE’s disposal facilities and develop guidance on how to compare and consider the total costs of using both types of disposal facilities in disposal decision-making. Scope and Methodology

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Senate Committee on Armed Services, asked us to review (1) the factors that influence DOE’s decisions about the treatment, storage, and disposal of low-level and mixed wastes and (2) DOE’s costs to treat, store, and dispose of these wastes and the cost-effectiveness of DOE’s disposal decisions.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Energy's (DOE) management and disposal of its low-level radioactive wastes, focusing on: (1) the factors that influence DOE's decisions about the treatment, storage, and disposal of the wastes; and (2) DOE's costs to treat, store, and dispose of these wastes and the cost-effectiveness of DOE's disposal decisions.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the limited availability of disposal alternatives is the principal factor influencing DOE's decisions about the treatment, storage, and disposal of its low-level and mixed wastes; (2) four of DOE's six disposal sites are restricted to disposing almost exclusively of their own wastes because of limits on their remaining disposal capacity and unfavorable site conditions; (3) the other two disposal sites have relatively dry climates and enough capacity to dispose of nearly all the low-level and mixed wastes generated at DOE's nuclear facilities nationwide; (4) some waste-generating sites have been able to use a commercial disposal facility, but the only facility that is readily available can accept only wastes that are very lightly contaminated with radioactivity; (5) on February 25, 2000, DOE adopted a new policy that will make the disposal facilities at the Nevada Test Site and the Hanford Site available to all of its waste-generating sites, for both low-level and mixed wastes; (6) however, there are roadblocks to fully implementing this policy--the states that host the disposal facilities may oppose increases in waste disposal at the sites, and DOE needs to obtain environmental permits from these states to dispose of mixed wastes; (7) from fiscal year (FY) 1997 through FY 1999, DOE spent over $700 million to prepare, treat, store, and dispose of its low-level and mixed wastes; (8) treatment and storage costs increased during this 3-year period while waste generators waited for DOE to issue its new policy making the Hanford and Nevada disposal facilities available to them; (9) when DOE fully implements this new policy, waste managers will have at least two disposal options and may be able to lower their waste disposal costs; (10) however, these managers currently lack complete information and guidance from the Department for making cost-effective disposal decisions; (11) the fees charged to waste generators by some DOE disposal facilities are not based on all of the facilities' costs to dispose of wastes; (12) moreover, the disposal facilities do not use uniform cost accounts in developing their respective fees; and (13) DOE has not developed full life-cycle costs for its six waste disposal facilities or established guidance to ensure that its waste managers base their disposal decisions on considerations of cost-effectiveness for DOE's entire program rather than on each site's annual budgetary interests.