The  nuclear utility industry generates the bulk of this LLRW through the  normal operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants, and through  the decommissioning of these plants. In 1991, Utah amended  the facility’s license to permit the disposal of some LLRW, and the  Northwest Compact agreed to allow the facility to accept these wastes  from noncompact states. However, fast-approaching constraints on the availability of  disposal capacity for class B and class C wastes could adversely affect the  disposal of many states’ LLRW. That facility currently  accepts about 99 percent of the nation’s class B and class C commercial  LLRW. Although waste generators in these 36 states will no longer have access to  Barnwell, they can continue to minimize waste generation, process waste  into safer forms, and store waste pending the development of additional  disposal options. While NRC prefers the disposal of LLRW, it allows on- site storage as long as the waste remains safe and secure. Two-thirds of this  facility is devoted to the processing and temporary storage of class A  waste. In contrast, available disposal capacity for the nation’s class A waste does  not appear to be a problem in either the short or long term. Our June 2004  report noted that EnergySolutions’ Clive facility had sufficient disposal  capacity, based upon then-projected disposal volumes, to accept class A  waste for at least 20 years under its current license. This facility currently  accepts about 99 percent of the nation’s class A LLRW. This decline is  primarily attributed to DOE’s completion of several cleanup projects. According to the disposal  operator, capacity for this facility has been extended another 13 years, to  33 years of capacity. It is important to note, however, that our June 2004 analysis of available  LLRW disposal capacity considered only domestically produced LLRW. We  did not consider the impact of imported LLRW on available class A, B, and  C disposal capacity at Clive, Barnwell, and Richland. Most Foreign Countries Either Have Available LLRW Disposal Capacity or Plan to Develop It

While none of the foreign countries we surveyed for our March 2007 report  indicated that they have disposal options for all of their LLRW, almost all  either had disposal capacity for their lower-activity LLRW or central  storage facilities for their higher-activity LLRW, pending the availability of  disposal capacity. Ten of the 18 countries reported having available  disposal capacity for their lower-activity LLRW and 6 other countries have  plans to build such facilities. Only 3 countries indicated that they have a  disposal option for some higher-activity LLRW. Of the 18 countries we surveyed, only Italy indicated that it lacked  disposal availability for both lower- and higher-activity LLRW and central  storage facilities for this waste. It also created a national agency that would establish  and operate a disposal site for radioactive waste. These approaches included, among  other things,    using a comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory of all types of  radioactive waste by volume, location, and waste generator;   providing disposition options for all types of LLRW or providing central  storage options for higher-radioactivity LLRW if disposal options are  unavailable; and    developing financial assurance requirements for all waste generators to  reduce government disposition costs. Currently, the United  States does not have a national radioactive waste management plan and  does not have a single federal agency or other organization responsible for  coordinating LLRW stakeholder groups to develop such a plan. Our March 2007 report recommended that DOE and NRC evaluate and  report to the Congress on the usefulness of adopting the LLRW  management approaches used in foreign countries and developing a U.S.  radioactive waste management plan. In a March 2008 letter to GAO on the  actions NRC has taken in response to GAO’s recommendations, NRC  stated that the approach used in the United States is fundamentally  different from other countries. In particular, NRC argued that, because  responsibility for LLRW disposal is placed with the states, the federal  government’s role in developing options for managing and/or disposing of  LLRW is limited. NRC also expressed concern about the usefulness and  significant resources required to develop and implement national  inventories and management plans. For  example, there are no national contingency plans, other than allowing  LLRW storage at waste generator sites, to address the impending closure  of the Barnwell facility to class B and class C LLRW from noncompact  states. The availability of a national plan and periodic reporting on waste  conditions might also provide the Congress and the public with a more  accessible means for monitoring the management of radioactive waste and  provide a mechanism to build greater public trust in the management of  these wastes in the United States.
Why GAO Did This Study

Disposal of radioactive material continues to be highly controversial. To address part of the disposal problem, in 1980, Congress made the states responsible for disposing of most low-level radioactive waste (LLRW), and allowed them to form regional compacts and to restrict access to disposal facilities from noncompact states. LLRW is an inevitable by-product of nuclear power generation and includes debris and contaminated soils from the decommissioning and cleanup of nuclear facilities, as well as metal and other material exposed to radioactivity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ranks LLRW according to hazard exposure--classes A, B, C, and greater-than-class C (GTCC). The states are responsible for the first three classes, and the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for GTCC. Three facilities dispose of the nation's LLRW--in Utah, South Carolina, and Washington State. The testimony addresses (1) LLRW management in the United States and (2) LLRW management in other countries. It is substantially based on two GAO reports: a June 2004 report (GAO-04-604) and a March 2007, report (GAO-07-221) that examined these issues. To prepare this testimony, GAO relied on data from the two reports and updated information on current capacity for LLRW and access to disposal facilities.

What GAO Found

As GAO reported in 2004, existing disposal facilities had adequate capacity for most LLRW and were accessible to waste generators (hereafter referred to as disposal availability) in the short term, but constraints on the disposal of certain types of LLRW warranted concern. Specifically, South Carolina had decided to restrict access to its disposal facility by mid-2008 for class B and C waste--the facility now accepts about 99 percent of this waste generated nationwide--to only waste generators in the three states of its compact. If there are no new disposal options for class B and C wastes after 2008, licensed users of radioactive materials can continue to minimize waste generation, process waste into safer forms, and store waste pending the development of additional disposal options. While NRC prefers that LLRW be disposed of, it allows on-site storage as long as the waste remains safe and secure. In contrast, disposal availability for domestic class A waste is not a problem in the short or longer term. In 2004, GAO reported that the Utah disposal facility--which accepts about 99 percent of this waste generated nationwide--could accept such waste for 20 years or more under its current license based on anticipated class A waste volumes. Since 2005, the volume of class A waste disposed of has declined by two-thirds primarily because DOE completed several large cleanup projects, extending the capacity for an additional 13 years, for a total of 33 years of remaining disposal capacity. However, the June 2004 analysis, and the updated analysis, were based on the generation of LLRW only in the United States and did not consider the impact on domestic disposal capacity of importing foreign countries' LLRW. Ten of the 18 countries surveyed for GAO's March 2007 report have disposal options for class A, B and most of C waste, and 6 other countries have plans to build such facilities. Only 3 countries indicated that they have a disposal option for some class C and GTCC waste; however, almost all countries that do not provide disposal for LLRW have centralized storage facilities for this waste. Only Italy reported that it had no disposal or central storage facilities for its LLRW, although it plans to develop a disposal site for this waste that will include waste from its decommissioned nuclear power plants and from other nuclear processing facilities. Italy initially expected this disposal site to be operational by 2010, but local governments' resistance to the location of this disposal site has delayed this date. The March 2007 report also identified a number of LLRW management approaches used in other countries that may provide lessons to improve the management of U.S. radioactive waste. These approaches include the use of comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory databases and the development of a national radioactive waste management plan. Such a plan would specify a single entity responsible for coordinating radioactive waste management and include strategies to address all types of radioactive waste. GAO had recommended that NRC and DOE evaluate and report to the Congress on the usefulness of these approaches. While the agencies considered these approaches, they expressed particular concerns about the significant resources required to develop and implement a national inventory and management plan for LLRW.