States Are Making Slow Progress on Developing New Disposal Facilities

As of January 1995, 11 states had plans to develop disposal facilities for commercially generated low-level waste, and the state of Washington planned to continue operating its existing disposal facility. Slow Progress Is Due to Controversy Over Disposal Facilities

The limited progress states have made in developing new facilities for disposing of commercially generated low-level waste appears to be fundamentally due to the controversial nature of such facilities. Currently, 11 new facilities are planned in addition to the state of Washington’s existing facility. Studies by DOE and others that examine economic aspects of low-level radioactive waste facilities have concluded that fewer larger new facilities could accommodate current waste volumes at less cost than a larger number of small facilities. In the initial years (1963 to 1971) of commercially generated low-level waste disposal, the volume of waste and the number of sites increased. 3.1.) California has licensed a facility, but environmental concerns remain unresolved. According to the director, alternatives to the current approach would have to come from the states themselves. Second, states with substantial federal lands have opposed efforts to place waste disposal facilities within their borders.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed state efforts to dispose of the low-level radioactive waste that is generated commercially within their borders.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) 11 states plan to develop commercially generated low-level waste disposal facilities and the state of Washington plans to continue operating its existing disposal facility; (2) 4 states plan to complete facilities between 1997 and 2002, but the remaining states have yet to develop plans for their disposal facilities; (3) the slow progress of development is due to the controversial nature of nuclear waste disposal; (4) a smaller number of larger new facilities could accommodate the current volume of waste at less cost than a greater number of smaller facilities, but the volume of low-level waste could increase in the near future; (5) although new facilities will be necessary to store the waste in 33 states, the environmental effects of having 11 new facilities are unclear; and (6) shifting disposal responsibility from the states to the federal government could present significant challenges, and could undermine state progress in implementing the existing state approach.